II 


l^. 


■-mm- 


'a^. 


?-M'''' 


■vv;:-,  ■' 


'  *-■■  V 


'  ■'»" 


ORIGIN    AND    STRUCTURE 

OF    THE 

PENTATEUCH 


The  Pentateuch 


ITS  ORIGIN  AND  STRUCTURE 


AN  EXAMINATION  OF  RECENT  THEORIES 


BY 


EDWIN  CONE   BISSELL,  D.D. 

Professor  of  the  Hebrew  Language  and  Literature  in  the  Hartford  Theological 

Seminary 


/  *   >     c  "  r    J 


V.  ••    •      •       '•   •    .  •*•  -*„  .»-  -.-" 


NEW    YORK 
CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 

1907 


Copyright,  1885,  by 

:harles  scribner's  sons 


J3S 

I    ^^  ^  ^.j 

PREFACE. 


o«! 


While  pursuing  Old  Testament  studies  in  the  University  at 
Leipsic,  some  years  since,  the  writer  became  warmly  interested 
in  the  subject  of  Pentateuch  criticism,  especially  in  connection 
with  the  more  private  societies  (Gesellschaften)  of  Delitzsch  and 
Guthe,  where  it  was  made  the  chief  topic  of  discussion.  Having 
once  entered  upon  it,  he  found  the  questions  it  raised  of  too  grave 
a  nature  to  be  relinquished  without  a  serious  eifort  at  settlement. 
In  fact,  in  view  of  the  startling  conclusions  reached  by  an  eminently 
respectable  portion  of  German  scholarship,  he  felt  bound  to  give 
reasons,  at  least  to  himself,  for  his  faith  in  an  Old  Testament 
revelation.  He  has  accordingly  had  before  him,  for  the  most  part, 
the  criticism  in  its  German  form.  For  his  readers  this  method  of 
treatment  will  have  the  advantage,  that,  while  the  works  of  such 
representative  writers  as  Graf  and  Wellhausen  are  no  less  easily 
comprehensible  in  their  leading  principles  and  terms,  they  fully 
M  include,  and  are  the  evident  source  of,  the  most  that  has  been  said 
on  that  side  of  the  question  in  England  and  America. 

A  little   more  than  one   half  of  the   present   book   has   already 

appeared  in  print:  the  papers  numbered  i.,  iii.,  v.,  vii.,  viii.,  in  the 

g^  Bibliotheca  Sacra  during  the  years  1882-84;  and  iv.  in  the  Journal 

"^  of  the  Society  for  Biblical  Literature  and  Exegesis  for  July  -  Uecem- 

'^  ber,  1884.     All  such  papers,  however,  have  been  carefully  revised, 

and  to  some  of  them  considerable  additions  been  made. 
-ct      A  work  of  this  kind,  if  it  is  to  be  faithfully  done,  requires  the  con- 
"^  scientious  study  of  problems  of  the  utmost  intricacy  and  perplexity. 
The  cursory  reader,  it  is  likely,  will  turn  rapidly  over  the  papers 
numbered  iii.-vi.,  dealing  mostly  with  the  origin  and  inner  relation- 
ship of  Pentateuch  laws.     But  to  the  more  thoughtful  reader  and 
the  student  who  is  aware  that,  for  a  score  of  years,  it   has  been 
^    in  this  thicket  of  the  Hebrew  legislation  that  some  of  the  keenest 
^^  intellects  of  the  age  have  wrestled  mightily  over  great  biblical  ques- 
tions, they  will  have  a  peculiar  attraction.     Every  law  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, aside  from  a  few  in  Exodus  having   no   important  bearing 
on  the  subject  in  hand,  has  been  brought  under   review  in   these 
four  i^apcrs  and  conveniently  tabulated.     Excepting  the  articles  of 
HoiTmann  (^Magasin  f.  d.  ]]'isscnsc)iaft  d.  JudeniJniins,  1879-80), 
to  which  he  acknowledges  himself  much  indebted,  the  author  knows 


iv  p7'eface. 

of  no  one  work  of  the  criticism  making  these  laws  so  special  a 
subject  of  examination.  He  knows  of  none  whatever  treating  them 
so  systematically  and  fully.  It  may  not  be  amiss,  moreover,  to 
state,  while  holding  himself  alone  responsible  for  results  reached, 
that,  through  a  series  of  years,  the  reasoning  employed  in  this  part 
of  the  book  has  been  brought  to  the  test  of  the  freest  discussion 
of  the  class-room. 

The  good  sense  of  the  reader  may  be  trusted  not  to  draw  two 
quite  unwarrantable  inferences  from  this  book.  First,  because  the 
author  finds  the  so-called  traditional  view  of  the  origin  and  structure 
of  the  Pentateuch  much  better  supported  than  the  one  now  most 
widely  current  in  Germany,  that  therefore  he  beguiles  himself  with 
the  illusion  that  there  are  no  serious  difficulties  in  it  still  remaining 
to  be  solved.  And,  second,  because  he  is  forced  to  reject  as  erro- 
neous, not  only  the  general  conclusions,  but  also  many  of  the  logical 
methods,  of  Wellhausen,  and  the  class  of  critics  he  represents,  that 
therefore  he  does  not  approve  of  biblical  criticism  when  properly 
conducted.  Next  to  adopting  the  theories  of  these  critics,  no 
higher  mark  of  interest  in  such  criticism  could  well  be  demanded 
than  that  one  freely  consent  to  enter  upon  its  discussion  with  them 
on  the  plane,  and  with  the  terms,  of  their  own  choosing. 

For,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  the  author  is  convinced  that  the 
thing  of  greatest  influence  in  Pentateuch  criticism,  as  now  gen- 
erally conceived  of,  is  but  loosely  connected  with  the  Pentateuch 
—  it  is  the  point  of  view  of  the  investigator  (see  p.  317).  The 
philosophy,  even  more  than  the  science,  is  responsible  for  conclu- 
sions reached.  But  if  there  be  great  undiscovered  secrets  in  the 
Bible,  they  must  surely  be  one  in  essence  with  the  secret  of  the 
earth  and  of  man:  a  secret  of  the  Lord  which  will  be  disclosed 
to  them  that  fear  Him. 

To  find  the  truth  and  the  will  of  God  as  expressed  in  it,  to  stay 
by  it,  love  it,  make  it  one's  own,  defend  it  to  the  death,  —  that  is 
the  common  goal  of  religion  and  of  all  true  science.  If  one  man 
study  the  Bible  religiously  and  another  study  it  scientifically,  still 
they  are  friends  and  allies  unless  the  one's  religion  or  the  other's 
science  is  somehow  at  fault.  Indeed,  why  should  your  religion 
exclude  my  science  even  here,  or  my  science  your  religion,  if 
both  the  science  and  the  religion  possess  the  teachableness  and 
the  sweet  humility  of  the  little  child,  to  which  was  made  the 
promise  of  the  kingdom? 

Hartford,  September  7,  1885. 


CONTENTS. 


I. 
Introductory   i 

II. 
Historical  Sketch  of  the  Criticism .    42 

III. 
The  Proposed  Analysis   of  the  Law  Tested  in  its  Lead- 
ing Principles 85 

IV. 
Laws  Peculiar  to  Deuteronomy 132 

V. 
Laws  Repeated  and  Modified  in  Deuteronomy    .     .     .164 

VI. 
Laws  Peculiar  to  the  "Priests'  Code"   ......  206 

VII. 

Unity  and  Genuineness  of  Deuteronomy 248 

VIII. 
The  Law  and  the  Prophets 290 

IX. 
The  Law  and  the  Historical  Books 318 

X. 
The  Law  and  the  Psalms 362 

XI. 
Literature    of    the    Pentateuch    and    the    Related 

Criticism  of  the  Old  Testament 410 

XII. 

Indexes 47*^ 

(i)   Scripture  Texts. 
(2)  General  Index. 


THE    PENTATEUCH 

ITS   ORIGIN  AND    STRUCTURE. 


INTRODUCTORY. 


If  we  discover  among  us  in  these  days  any  disposi- 
tion to  underrate  or  relatively  disparage  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, any  tendency  to  neglect  it  in  our  theological 
schools,  we  must  see,  too,  that  Providence  is  signally 
interposing  on  its  behalf,  and  vindicating  for  it  the 
highest  claims  to  our  attention.  It  is  safe  to  say, 
bating  from  the  statement  whatever  you  please  for  any 
partiality  one  might  have  for  favorite  studies,  that  not 
a  few  of  the  problems  with  which  the  minds  of  thought- 
ful men  are  grappling  to-day  directly  concern  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures.  It  is  the  Book  of  Genesis  that 
we  couple  in  our  thinking  with  certain  puzzling 
questions  of  geology  and  cosmography. 

It  is  the  same  book  that  serves  as  point  of  departure 
for  the  still  mooted  subject,  when  human  history  had 
its  beginning,  and  how  it  began.  It  is  to  the  Old 
Testament  chiefly  that  the  science  of  archaeology, 
opening  up  in  our  day  so  broad  a  field  and  awakening 
in  its  devotees  so  inspiring  an  ardor,  comes  to  lay 
down    its    store    of    gathered    facts    and    illustrations. 


The  Pentateuch  :   Its  OriHii  a^id  Stnictiire. 


<b ' 


From  old  Sepharvaim  of  the  Books  of  Kings  and  Isaiah 
some  of  the  latest  treasures  of  monumental  literature 
have  been  welcomed  to  our  Western  world. 

It  is  significant,  too,  that  an  eminent  Assyriologist 
published,  not  long  ago,  as  the  result  of  special  study 
in  this  department,  a  discussion  of  the  question  —  more 
practical  in  its  bearing  than  might  appear —  Where  was 
Paradise'?^  And  it  is  not  geography  or  history  or 
chronology  alone  that  these  priceless  records  are 
teaching  us.  They  are  enriching  our  lexicons  and 
correcting  our  grammars  as  well.  It  is  an  open  secret 
that  there  are  in  the  sacred  text  not  a  few  words, 
Hebrew  and  Aramaic,  whose  meaning  as  yet  has  only 
been  surmised,  and  that  a  single  Psalm  of  less  than 
forty  verses  has  thirteen  words  that  do  not  elsewhere 
occur  in  the  Bible.  Hence,  it  is  a  gladdening  con- 
sideration that  scholars  are  now  in  process  of  construct- 
ing from  these  same  monuments  of  the  past  lexicon 
and  grammar  of  a  closely  allied  Shemitic  tongue  older, 
it  is  claimed,  and  more  archaic  in  its  forms,  than  any 
other  known  to  man,  and  of  such  a  character  that  the 
vocalization  of  every  word  has  been  exactly  preserved. 

As  if  all  this  were  not  enough  to  quicken  our  flag- 
ging zeal,  and  teach  us  that  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  can 
never  be  divorced  from  the  Greek  Scriptures  in  our 
reverential  study,  the  heaviest  cannonading  of  biblical 
criticism  is  just  now  heard  among  these  earliest  records 
of  our  faith.  Around  the  Gospels  and  Epistles  there 
is,  for  the  moment,  a  comparative  lull  in  the  conflict, 
while  Moses  and  his  great  work  are  sharply  challenged. 

A  certain  style  of  biblical  criticism  has  always  found 
here  an  attractive  field  —  where  the  scantiness  of 
objective  and  contemporaneous  elements  has   seemed 

^  Friedrich  Delitzsch,  Wo  lag  das  Parodies? 


Introductory.  3 

to  invite  and  permit  a  corresponding  subjective  fulness 
and  assurance.  We  are  already  accustomed,  in 
connection  with  the  Pentateuch,  to  such  names  as 
"Jehovist,"  "Elohist"and  "Younger  Elohist,"  "Deu- 
teronomist"  and  "  Redactor,"  although  they  are  found 
in  no  accredited  list  of  sacred  writers,  and  have  hitherto 
failed  to  impress  us  with  the  simple  grandeur  of  him 
who  smote  the  rock  at  Horeb,  and  spoke  face  to  face 
with  God,  "as  a  man  speaketh  to  his  friend."  We 
have  seen  one  scheme  of  the  origin  of  Genesis  and  its 
companion  books  give  place  in  quick  succession  to 
another.  We  have  seen  the  documents  of  which  it  is 
assumed  that  they  are  composed,  submitted,  on  the 
basis  of  other  assumptions,  to  every  sort  of  kaleido- 
scopic arrangement,  until,  as  it  should  seem,  the  very 
limit  of  possible  combinations  had  been  reached. 

But  it  has  been  left  to  critics  of  our  own  day  to 
propound  a  theory  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  the  course  of 
Israelitish  history,  which  totally  eclipses  all  that  have 
preceded  it.  Were  the  goodly  towns  and  cities  of  these 
Eastern  States  of  America,  with  their  swarming  mill- 
ions of  people,  with  all  their  glory  of  material  magnifi- 
cence and  moral  power,  suddenly  to  be  put  down,  in 
some  way,  conceivable  or  inconceivable,  in  the  far-off 
valley  of  the  Mississippi,  leaving  only  scattered  villages 
and  hamlets  where  this  surging  tide  of  life  had  been 
before,  it  could  not  so  affect  our  organic  existence  as 
a  people,  it  could  not  so  completely  change  the  avenues 
of  trade,  revolutionize  our  social  habits  and  methods  of 
living  and  working,  color  and  shape  our  national  future, 
as  would  this  latest  scheme  of  criticism,  were  it  to  suc- 
ceed, revolutionize  our  old-time  theories  of  the  compo- 
sition and  organic  structure  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
the  order,  continuity,  and  contents  of  sacred  history. 


The  PcntatciicJi :    Its  Orio;in  and  Structure. 


<b ' 


It  is  nothing  less  than  a  tremendous  critical  cataclysm, 
an  upheaval  and  a  transformation  that  are  continental 
in  their  reach  and  influence. 

The  movement  may  be  said,  to  have  taken  its  rise 
long  since  in  the  strictures  of  an  Aben  Ezra^  on  the 
current  method  of  treating  the  Pentateuch  as  solely  the 
work  of  Moses.  From  him  it  came  down  through 
a  Carlstadt,^  Spinoza,^  Astruc,'*  continually  taking 
broader  sweep  and  clearer  outline  to  the  time  of 
Reuss,^  George,^  and  Vatke/  of  our  present  century. 
But  until  the  appearance  of  Graf^  as  its  champion, 
somewhat  less  than  a  score  of  years  ago,  the  theory  had 
not  really  taken  characteristic  shape;  had  found  no 
sufficient  sponsor ;  had  failed  to  awaken  the  serious 
attention  of  scholars  to  its  claims  ;  in  fact,  had  some- 
times met  the  smile  of  derision  in  the  house  of  its 
friends.  Under  his  skilful  manipulations  and  masterly 
support,  it  took  at  once  front  rank  among  stirring 
questions ;  indeed,  it  may  be  said,  shot  like  a  meteor 
into  the  sky  of  human  observation.  And  though  men 
looked  to  see  it  pass  away  again,  like  our  meteors,  it 
blazes  still,  a  growing  and  portentous  wonder  to  this 
very  hour. 

And  this  is  one  of  the  strangest  things  about  the 
theory :  its  sudden  and  wide  success  in  the  land  of  its 
birth.     Professor  Robertson  Smith,  in  a  recent  work, 

1  For  an  account  of  his  exegeiical  works,  see  Ersch  u.  Gruber's  Encyklop'ddie ,  i.,  s.v. 
He  held  that  the  Pentateuch  was  mainly  the  work  of  Moses,  excepting  only  certain 
interpolations. 

''■  De  Cationicis  Scriptttris,  1520. 

2  Tractates  Theologico-politictts,  1670. 

^  Conjectures  sur  Ics  Mi-moires  ort'oiuatcx,  etc.,  1753. 

^  Tkesen  (1833),  Art.  "  Judenthum,"  in  Ersch  u.  Gruber's  Encyklop.  His  most 
recent  work  published  is  Ceschichte  d.  Hciligen  Schri/ten  d.  A.  T.,  1881. 

^  Die  Aelteren  yHdischcn  Feste,  etc.,  1835. 

'  Die  Religioti  d.  A.  T.,\.  1835. 

'^  De  Tcmplo  Silonensi,  etc.  (1855);  Die  geschichtlichen  Ducher  d.  A.  T.  (1866): 
Art.  in  reply  to  Riehin  in  Merx's  Archiz'  (1869). 


Introductory.  5 

declares  that  it  represents  "the  growing  conviction  of 
an  overwhelming  weight  of  the  most  earnest  and  sober 
scholarship."  1  And  while  I  should  wish  to  limit  such  a 
statement  to  Germany  and  to  change  at  least  one  of 
the  adjectives  applied  to  scholarship,  there  can  be,  I 
think,  no  doubt  that  a  large  majority  of  the  younger 
theologians  of  Germany  have  really  adopted  the  chief 
conclusions  of  Professors  Kuenen^  and  Wellhausen,^ 
and  found  in  them  a  happy  solution  of  many  perplexing 
critical  problems.  Of  this  class,  it  is  not  enough  to 
say,  that  the  theory  represents  their  convictions,  or 
even  dominates  them.  They  flaunt  it ;  wear  it  as  a 
decoration';  receive  its  principal  supporters  with  clangor 
of  trumpets,  as  though  a  sweeping  victory  had  been 
won. 

Excepting  works  relating  exclusively  to  the  text, 
nearly  everything  of  weight  that  has  appeared  in 
Germany  in  the  department  of  the  Old  Testament  for 
the  last  two  years  has  treated  of  this  theme.  Heavy 
reviews  have  been  started  in  defence  of  the  new 
hypothesis,  voluminous  commentaries  written,  saturated 
Vv^ith  its  spirit  and  methods ;  and  even  some  of  the 
later  Hebrew  grammars  show  on  their  supposed  impas- 
sive pages  marks  of  the  theological  revolution. 

Does  any  one  ask,  But  what  is  it  all  to  us }  What 
are  the  books  we  read,  or  the  moral  atmosphere  we 
breathe,  to  us  t  Take  the  German  books,  and  the 
translations  of  German  books,  out  of  our  theological 
libraries,  and  you  would  be  amazed  at  the  emptiness  of 
the  shelves.     Nor  is  it  a  matter  which  concerns  theo- 

1  The  Old  Testament  in  the  yewish  Church,  p.  216. 

2  His  principal  works  have  been  published  in  England,  The  Religion  0/  Israel,  etc., 
3  vols.,  1874;  The  Prophets  and  Prophecy  in  Israel,  1877;  but  numerous  articles  on  the 
same  subject  have  appeared  from  time  to  time  in  the  Theolog.  Tijdschrijt  (Leyden) . 

^  "  Die  Composition  dcb  Hcxateuchs  "  in  yahrhilcher  filr  Deutsche  Thcologie,  1876, 
pp.  392-450,  532-602;  1877,  pp.  407-47y;   Geschichie  Israels,  i.  1878. 


TJic  Pentateuch:  Its  Oris:in  and  Structure 


^' 


logians  and  ministers  only.  The  theory  has  ah'eady 
crossed  the  EngHsh  Channel  bodily,  and  is  finding 
adherents  also,  here  and  there,  among  the  Christian 
churches  of  America.  It  has  learned  to  utter  itself 
in  an  attractive  English  style ;  even  found  its  way  in 
a  series  of  biblical  Articles,  how  and  why  I  know  not, 
into    the    most    prominent    of    English    Encyclopaedias. 

One  will  still  recall  the  vigorous  protests  made,  some 
years  ago,  on  the  appearance  of  "Essays  and  Reviews." 
But  a  rationalism  such  as  was  reprobated  in  "  Essays 
and  Reviews  "  was  mildness  itself  compared  with  that 
of  an  Article  entitled  "  Israel,"  by  Julius  Wellhausen, 
in  vol.  xiii.  of  the  Eficyclopcedia  Britannica.  It  cuts 
completely  loose  from  all  traditional  views  of  Israelitish 
and  early  sacred  history.  If  its  positions  be  true,  it 
makes  dreadful  havoc  not  only  of  a  considerable  part 
of  the  ancient  Scriptures,  but  of  many  of  the  choicest 
classics  of  the  English  church  and  the  English  tongue. 
And  though  it  be  balefully  false,  still,  from  the  stand- 
point of  our  times  a  certain  plausibility  cannot  be 
denied  it ;  and  as  one  of  the  characteristic,  culminating 
products  of  the  lauded  scientific  method,  it  challenges 
our  serious  attention. 

The  theory  in  its  latest  form,  and  stated  in  the  very 
briefest  terms,  is  this :  ^  The  Hexateuch,  that  is,  the 
Pentateuch  and  the  Book  of  Joshua,  is  made  up  of  three 
leading  documents,  —  omitting  here  a  minor  distinction, 
—  belonging  to  wholly  different  writers  and  widely 
different  times.  The  Jehovist  document,^  which  is  the 
oldest  and  briefest,  begins  with  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
verse  of  the  second  chapter  of  Genesis,  and  while  mainly 

1  Cf.  Wellhausen's  edition  of  Bleek's  Einleitiing  in  d.  Alte  Testament  C1878),  pp. 
177,  178. 

2  A  distinction  is  made  by  critics  between  the  "Jehovist "  and  the  document  ascribed  ta 
him,  it  being  called  a  "  Jahvist  "  document. 


Introductory.  7 

appearing  as  history,  contains  the  legislation  of  the  so- 
called  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  xx.-xxiii. ;  xxxiv.).i 
The  second  document  originally  embraced  only  the 
legislative  portions  of  Deuteronomy  (xii.-xxvi.).  It  was 
at  once  occasion  and  product  of  the  so-called  "  Deuter- 
onomic  reforms"  in  the  time  of  Josiah  (621  e.g.),  itself 
originating  possibly  in  some  collusion  of  priests  and 
facile  king.  Later  it  was  given  its  present  historic 
setting  by  the  "  Deuteronomist,"  who  also  worked  over 
the  document  which  had  preceded  it,  making  his  hand 
especially  prominent  in  the  Book  of  Joshua  :  all,  you 
will  perceive,  some  centuries  after  the  time  of  Moses. 
The  most  important  work  of  all,  named  from  the  nature 
of  its  contents  the  "  Code  of  the  Priests,"  which  begins 
the  Bible,  contains  parts  of  Genesis  and  Exodus  and  the 
Levitical  legislation  of  the  middle  books  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, with  its  historic  setting,  did  not  see  the  light,  it 
is  said,  till  after  the  exile.  True,  it  claims  to  be  Mosaic, 
as  does  also  Deuteronomy ;  but  that  is  simply  an  histri- 
onic, not  an  historic,  claim, — a  representation  made  in 
the  interest  of  its  authority.  In  its  narrative  portions 
it  is  mainly  a  product  of  the  fancy,  although  that  nar- 
rative includes  such  matter  as  an  account  of  the  taber- 
nacle and  its  furniture ;  and,  as  for  the  rest,  it  is  the 
work  of  no  one  man,  but  of  a  school  —  a  sort  of  precipi- 
tate from  the  literary  activity  of  various  priests  and 
learned  men.  Still  the  Hexateuch  is  not  complete. 
There  is  required  another  mastcrhand,  —  a  masterhand, 
indeed, — a  Redactor,  who  shall  unite  this  "Code  of  the 
Priests  "  to  the  previous  work  of  the  Jehovist  and  the 
Deuteronomist,  making  the  one  supposed  continuous 
history,  by  skilful  trimming  here  and  interpolating 
there,  accord  with  the  other  continuous  history,  and  the 

'  All  references  to  the  Old  Testament  are  to  the  Hebrew  text. 


8  The  Pentatetich  :    Its  Origin  and  Stritcture. 


laws  of  the  different  periods  fit  together,  as  best  he  can. 
He  appears  as  these  subjective  personages  usually  do. 
He  lives  in  the  time  and  breathes  the  atmosphere  of 
the  last  great  work,  the  "  Code  of  the  Priests "  ;  and 
governed  fully  by  its  spirit  he  joins  together  in  one 
grand  whole  these  diverse  products  of  a  millenium, 
and  deterred,  as  far  as  we  know,  by  no  scruples  of 
conscience,  leaves  them  under  the  countenance  of  a 
supposititious  Sinaitic  lawgiver,  whose  name  has 
been  sagaciously  painted  in,  and  whose  personality 
has  been    impressed  at  every  convenient  opportunity. 

Now,  from  the  point  of  view  of  this  school  of  criticism, 
that  is,  accepting  it  as  true  that  these  men  really  did 
this  work  in  the  way  described,  it  must  be  acknowledged 
that  they  did  it  extremely  well.  The  Pentateuch  as 
thus  made  up,  and  as  a  mere  literary  achievement,  is  an 
eminent  success ;  in  fact,  a  very  prodigy  of  genius,  call 
it  a  romance,  or  call  it  what  you  will.  But  there  are 
those  who  are  unable  to  take  this  point  of  view ;  and 
such  will  naturally  look  to  see  what  is  to  be  the  outcome 
of  this  stupendous  reconstruction  of  the  records,  pos- 
sibly, even  before  they  test  the  question  of  its 
probability. 

They  will  scarcely  be  able  to  resist  the  conviction 
that,  if  this  be  a  true  representation  of  the  case,  then 
the  jewel  set  in  the  crown  of  the  Scriptures  reflects  a 
false  lustre ;  that  we  have  in  the  Pentateuch  simply  a 
five-fold  imposition,  a  nearly  worthless  composite  of 
mingled  cleverness  and  fraud.  Real  homogeneousness 
of  texture  there  is  none.  Patriarchal  history,  excepting 
some  floating  myths,  completely  gone.  Mosaic  history, 
even,  only  represented  in  some  scattered  debris  borne 
downward  on  the  heaving  waters  of  a  beclouded  tide. 
A    sacred    history   of    the    Old    Testament,    properly 


Introductory.  9 

speaking,  there  can  be  none.  It  is  reduced  simply  to  an 
account,  more  or  less  credible,  of  the  rise,  development, 
and  decline  of  a  Jewish  sect  that  reached  its  bloom  after 
the  exile.  The  principal  contents  of  the  Pentateuch 
have  really  nothing  to  do  with  the  history  of  an  Israel 
that  sprang  from  the  loins  of  Abraham,  but  solely  with 
this  post-exilian  sect. 

Such  a  people  as  Israel  there  was  ;  but  all  you  can 
learn  of  them,  to  any  purpose,  must  be  learned  from  the 
Books  of  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings,  and  the  prophets 
of  the  preexilian  period.  The  great  lawgiver  of  the  old 
economy,  and  withal  the  grandest  figure  in  primitive 
history,  not  Moses  after  all,  but  Ezra,  the  priest,  who, 
with  his  straggling  remnant,  overlived  the  heavy  blows 
of  Chaldaea  and  Assyria !  The  standing  designation, 
"the  Law  and  the  Prophets,"  sanctioned  and  sanctified 
by  the  usage  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  a  misnomer ; 
it  should  rather  be  "the  Prophets  and  the  Law,"  the 
real  historic  order  being  just  the  reverse  of  the  order  as 
it  now  appears.  The  sources  of  the  Old  Testament 
religion  are  in  the  literature  of  the  early  prophets.  Pro- 
tevangelium  there  is  none.  The  promise  made  to  the 
seed  of  the  woman,  shining  like  another  Bethlehem  star 
over  the  birthplace  of  human  sin,  a  Jehovistic  conceit, 
meaning  something  or  meaning  nothing. 

There  is  as  radical  an  overturning  of  biblical  theology, 
you  will  see,  as  of  biblical  history  as  hitherto  conceived. 
The  idea  of  sacrifice,  for  instance,  must  be  readjusted 
on  a  wholly  different  plan,  and  made  to  serve  a  totally 
different  aim.  It  surely  cannot  take  the  widely  com- 
prehensive range  supposed,  while  ever  narrowing  in 
concentric  circles  to  one  central,  all-controlling  fact,  as 
the  writer  to  the  Hebrews  seems  firmly  to  have  believed. 
For  this  new  scheme,  as  it  leaves  the  history  of  redemp- 


lO         The  Pentateuch  :    Its  Oriscin  and  Structure. 


&>' 


tion  without  an  orderly  beginning,  so  it  leaves  it  with- 
out a  sufficient  end.  It  smites  off  the  roots  of  the 
development,  and  is  only  consistent  in  looking  for 
nothing  among  the  branches.  The  one  fitting  consum- 
mation of  the  national  life  and  religion  of  Israel,  the 
one  glorious  conclusion  of  the  Old  Testament  premises, 
openly  declared  to  be  not  Jesus  Christ,  of  the  seed  of 
David,  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  whose  day  Abraham  saw 
and  was  glad,  but  the  political  catastrophe  which  over- 
took the  Jewish  state  seventy  years  after  our  era  began, 
and  the  rabbinical  schools  which  then  sprang  up.^ 
Without  extravagance  of  statement,  such  is  the  startHng 
discovery  which  scholars  professing  to  be  governed  by 
strictly  scientific  principles  have  mad?  in  our  day  ;  such, 
in  bare  outline,  is  the  scheme,  with  some  of  its  more 
obvious  results,  which,  with  all  seriousness,  they  offer 
for  the  acceptance  of  the  Christian  wc  rid,  and  of  which 
Professor  Robertson  Smith  says  that  it  "  represents  an 
overwhelming  weight  of  the  most  efrnest  and  sober 
scholarship."  Bear  with  me  in  stating  a  few  natural 
reasons  for  supposing  that  a  really  sober  and  reverent 
scholarship  will  be  extremely  slow  in  accepting  it. 

First,  such  a  scholarship  will  find  it  impossible,  I 
think,  to  adopt  many  of  those  principles  of  criticism 
which  are  its  necessary  condition.  One  of  these  prin- 
ciples or  axioms,  for  examj^le,  is  that  persons  of  our 
day  —  I  should  perhaps  say  some  persons  of  our  day  — 
have  the  ability  to  take  up  these  ancient  records,  exist- 
ing quite  apart,  with  no  native  contemporaneous  matter 
to  which  there  can  be  appeal,  and  solely  on  the  basis  of 
inward  characteristics  of  style  and  the  like  decide 
with   nice   exactness    upon    their    relative   age.^      The 

1  See  Wellhausen's  Art.  "  Israel,"  as  above,  pp.  428,  429. 

2  Murray  {Lectures  on  the  Origin  and  Growth  0/  the  Psalms,  New  York,  1880,  p. 
132  f.)  has  well  characterized  the  uncertainty  of  conclusions  drawn  from  such  a  source. 


Introductory.  1 1 

recurrence  of  certain  names  of  God,  in  fact,  is  the 
hinge  on  which  the  question  turns  ;  Jehovah  marking 
the  earliest  document,  and  Elohim  the  latest.  And 
yet,  these  hypothetical  documents,  as  now  found,  would 
be  wholly  unintelligible  if  rent  asunder,  are  both  abso- 
lutely essential  to  the  integrity  and  continuity  of  the 
history  as  we  have  it ;  and  there  are  other  passages 
equally  essential,  where  both  the  characteristic  words 
must  be  admitted  to  be  integral  parts  of  the  same  docu- 
ment. Imagine  the  conclusions,  were  any  modern 
composition,  a  sermon  or  a  religious  book,  to  be  sub- 
jected to  the  same  process  of  dissection. 

I  know  how  widely  this  theory  of  documents  prevails 
in  Europe,  even  among  scholars  otherwise  as  far  apart 
as  Wcllhausen  and  Delitzsch.  But  among  German 
scholars  there  is  beginning  to  show  itself,  in  view  of 
the  tremendous  conclusions  which  are  drawn  from  it, 
a  call  for  a  serious  review  of  the  principles  on  which  it 
rests.^  Those  principles  are  acknowledged  to  be  but 
partially  applicable  to  the  Pentateuch,  and  scholars  are 
far  enough  from  being  agreed  just  how  to  apply  them. 
They  are   not,  and    cannot  be,  applied  to  other   parts 

"  Taking  up  the  Psalms  of  the  Davidic  Book,  scholars  have  been  accustomed  first  of  all, 
by  means  of  the  dozen  or  so  poems  which,  from  internal  setting  or  external  allusion,  have 
a  consensus  in  their  favor  as  of  Davidic  authorship,  to  fix  what  they  call  David's  style  of 
writing,  and  make  this  the  standard  for  judging  the  other  poems  of  the  collection.  Now 
style,  though,  on  the  whole,  the  surest  purely  literary  test  of  authorship,  is  not  a  com- 
plete one,  especially  when  dealing  with  ancient  literature.  I  doubt,  if  the  writings  of  the 
English  Poet- Laureate  should  have  the  good  fortune  to  survive  two  thousand  years,  and 
then  be  the  sole  remains  of  English  letters  from  the  Victorian  period,  whether  any  one 
will  be  inclined  to  refer  the  '  In  Memoriam  '  and  '  The  Princess '  to  the  same  author.  Per- 
haps they  will  say  they  have  been  placed  together  through  the  misapprehension  of  some 
later  editor,  while  the  '  Northern  Farmer'  will  be  rejected  as  spurious  by  all,  and  made  the 
point  of  many  an  argument  as  to  the  decay  of  the  English  speech.  In  the  study  of  any 
ancient  literature,  the  argument  from  literary  style  can  only  be  used  with  the  greatest 
caution.  It  has  broken  down  in  the  literary  study  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  just  at  a  point 
when  most  was  expected  of  it — in  the  comparison  of  the  earlier  and  later  chapters  of 
Isaiah." 

'  Marti,  "  Die  Spuren  der  sogenannten  Grundschrift  des  Hexateuchs"  in  Jahrb.  fuf 
Protestant.  Theologie  (1880),  p.  152. 


1 2         The  Pentateuch  :    Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

of  Scripture,  as  Job  and  Ecclesiastes,  the  Psalms, 
Proverbs,  and  Nehemiah,  where  a  use  of  these  divine 
names  scarcely  less  peculiar  is  found.  Yet  men  build 
on  these  shifting  sands  as  though  they  were  founda- 
tions of  imperishable  stone ;  and  alas !  it  is  the  temple 
of  our  common  hope  which  they  would  build. 

Another  canon  of  the  newer  criticism  is  that  a  law 
or  ceremonial  rite  can  only  then  be  regarded  as  really 
in  existence  when  it  is  appropriate  to  that  age,  and  can 
be  shown  to  have  been  enforced.  On  the  basis  of  this 
canon  it  goes  on  to  reason  that  as  there  is  no  sufficient 
evidence  that  the  Pentateuchal  laws  were  executed,  — 
the  Deuteronomic  before  the  time  of  Josiah,  or  the 
Levitical  before  the  exile,  —  therefore,  they  did  not 
respectively  come  into  being  before  these  periods. 

Now,  if  the  premise  were  to  be  admitted,  so  sweeping 
a  conclusion  would  by  no  means  follow.  For  though  it 
might  be  shown  that  these  laws  were  often  but  poorly 
enforced,  it  can  never  be  shown  that  there  was  no  effort 
to  enforce  them.  But  the  premise  is  not,  and  will  not 
be,  admitted.  Nothing,  in  fact,  could  be  more  fallacious. 
There  is  no  one  century  of  Christian  history  in  which 
it  cannot  be  demonstrated  to  be  conspicuously  false.^ 
Had  we  for  the  first  fourteen  centuries  of  our  era  no 
other  literature  than  the  New  Testament,  what  would 
be  easier,  on  such  a  principle  as  this,  than  to  establish 
conclusions  the  most  absurd  and  misleading .-'  Does 
the  church  of  the  fourteenth  century  adequately,  even 
decently,  represent  that  book .''  This  great  complex 
and  corrupt  organism  of  popes  and  prelates,  it  might  be 
said,  could  never  have  come  from  a  mould  so  simple, 
with  a  spirit  so  diverse  !  Luther,  consequently,  was  no 
mere  translator ;  he  must  have  been  originator,  author  ! 

1  Stebbins  has  well  shown  the  absurdity  of  this  canon  in  a  note  on  p.  24  of  his  excellent 
work,/}  Study  of  the  Pentateuch. 


hitrodiictory.  1 3 

The  New  Testament  is  mainly  from  his  pen.  Under 
cover  of  a  new  rendering,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  he  wrote 
the  Gospels  and  many  of  the  Epistles.  Nothing  else 
could  have  furnished  the  basis  for  a  reformation  so  rad- 
ical and  far-reaching  as  that  of  his  day.^  It  was  Jesus 
who  said  :  "  Did  not  Moses  give  you  the  law,  and  yet 
none  of  you  doeth  the  law } "  Make  the  life  of  a 
people  the  test  to  determine  the  nature  of  the  laws  of 
the  people,  and  that  for  this  people  whose  neck  was 
iron  and  forehead  brass!  It  is  quite  true  that  even 
good  men,  like  Samuel,  sometimes  turned  aside  from 
the  letter  of  their  code.  But  he  is  not  the  only  good 
man  who  has  done  it. 

A  third  fundamental  canon  of  the  latest  criticism, 
really  held  and  acted  upon  by  its  leading  representatives, 
and  not  infrequently  confessed,  is  that  a  supernatural 
revelation,  prophecy,  and  miracle  are  incredible.  That 
is,  it  dogmatically  assumes  the  impossibility  of  that 
which  as  believers  in  Christ  we  must  make  an  unaltera- 
ble premise  in  all  our  reasoning.  Nothing  else  will 
explain  either  the  activity  of  this  criticism  or  the  form 
it  everywhere  assumes.  This,  indeed,  is  the  principal 
ground  of  objection  to  a  Mosaic  Torah.  Moses,  it  is 
said,  on  the  traditional  view,  would  be  a  greater  miracle 
than  Jesus,  who  simply  came  in  the  fulness  of  time  ;  for 
he  came  wholly  out  of  time  and  out  of  place.  Hence, 
there  must  be  such  a  readjustment  of  the  records  as  shall 
put  Moses  in  his  place,  and  show  a  gradual  development 
of  the  history  and  laws.  One  may  not  begin  with 
Genesis,  and  then  follow  up  with  the  Levitical  code, 
but  with  the  Judges.  The  real  sources  of  Israelitish 
history  were  there. 

A  straight  line  of  development   is    demanded,    con- 

1  So  essentially  Bredenkamp,   Gesetz  u.  Propheten,  p.  5. 


14         TJie  Pentateuch  :    Its  Origin  and  Structure . 

trary  to  the  actual  order  of  historic  development,  which 
is  not  in  straight  lines.  A  straight  line  of  development 
is  demanded  :  it  cannot  be  otherwise,  it  is  said,  than 
that  Israel  first  built  a  house,  and  not  till  afterward 
a  church.^ 

But,  if  the  history  of  Israel  teaches  anything,  it 
teaches  that  his  house  and  church  were  one.  There  is 
not  the  slightest  documentary  evidence  that  in  concep- 
tion or  practice  any  such  dualism  ever  existed  among 
them.  In  fact,  we  take  direct  issue  with  this  method 
of  reasoning.  We  do  not  find  ourselves  under  any 
such  logical  compulsion  to  reconstruct  the  Pentateuch. 
We  see  no  such  imperative  need  for  denying  super- 
naturalism  in  the  Bible,  but  quite  the  contrary.  The 
logic  here  used  against  it  in  the  Old  Testament  is  as 
futile  when  applied  to  the  New  as  feathered  arrows 
against  a  rampart  of  stone.  Admitting  the  miracle  of 
Jesus,  the  miracle  of  Moses  is  no  anachronism.  As  in 
the  Christian  religion,  so  in  that  from  which  it  sprang, 
we  might  expect  to  find  the  essential  peculiarities  of  it 
in  its  original  sources,  might  be  even  surprised  did  we 
not  see  it  exhibiting  itself  in  its  greatest  purity  and 
power  at  the  outset  of  its  course. 

But  there  must  be  no  appeal  to  the  New  Testament 
—  that  is  another  principle  hotly  insisted  on.  It  is 
unscientific.  "  We  must  either  cast  aside  as  worthless," 
says  Kuenen,  "  our  dearly  bought  scientific  method,  or 
must  forever  cease  to  acknowledge  the  authority  of  the 
New  Testament  in  the  domain  of  the  exegesis  of  the 
Old."  2  The  New  Testament,  however,  is  at  least  an 
equal  sharer  in  the  glory  or  the  dishonor  of  the  Book  ! 
You  cannot  lay  the  hand  of  violence  on  any  funda- 
mental truth  of  the  elder  dispensation,  but  the  shrine 

1  Wellhausen,  Geschichte,  p.  267.        ^  The  Prophets  and  Prophecy  iu  Israel,  p.  487. 


Introductory.  1 5 

of  the  later  will  tremble  m  every  part  !  Still  the 
Master  and  his  apostles  must  not  be  heard  as  witnesses ! 
We  treat  our  criminals  with  more  respect. 

Has  the  fact  that,  if  the  New  Testament  were 
allowed  to  utter  itself  in  the  matter,  its  utterances 
would  be  final,  nothing  to  do  with  such  a  canon  ?  The 
Master  says  that  Moses,  about  whom  this  conflict 
chiefly  centres,  wrote  of  him.  Shall  that,  and  similar 
things,  have  no  infinitesimal  weight  in  a  discussion  of 
the  question,  what  Moses  wrote,  or  whether  he  wrote 
at  all }  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  accepts  the 
doctrine  of  sacrifice  in  its  Levitical  form  as  of  Mosaic 
origin  —  the  very  point  in  debate.  Is  it  therefore  to  be 
silenced,  and  forever  silenced,  for  the  church  of  Christ, 
as  it  inevitably  must  be  if  this  theory  prevail  }  How- 
ever this  may  be,  we  should  regard  any  mere  critical 
method  too  dearly  bought  at  such  a  price.  With  an 
early  Christian  writer,  we  would  rather  choose  to  say  : 
"  To  me  Jesus  Christ  is  the  sum  of  all  records  ;  my 
inviolable  records  are  his  cross  and  death  and  resurrec- 
tion and  the  faith  through  him,"  ^ 

Moreover,  the  principles  of  this  type  of  criti- 
cism allow  one  to  impute  to  Old  Testament  writers 
motives  and  practices  which  totally  unfit  them  to  be  the 
medium  of  spiritual  instruction.  The  Scriptures,  it  is 
true,  have  a  human  side  ;  but  it  has  been  left  to  these 
critics  to  charge  upon  not  a  few  of  its  writers  conscious 
trickery  and  imposition.  And  that  they  fully  believe 
their  own  charge  is  sufficiently  evinced  by  the  treat- 
ment they  themselves  accord  to  the  sacred  writers. 
They  seem  to  think  it  needful  to  meet  this  supposed 
finesse  not  only  with  exposure,  but  with  an  irreverence, 
a  triviality,  a  spirit  of  depreciation,  which  show  that  a 

>  Ignat.,  m].  Phi  In  del.,  viii. 


1 6         TJie  PentateiicJi :    Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

feeling  of  contempt  has  overcome  the  natural  sense  of 
sorrow  and  shame  which  such  a  fact  might  be  expected 
to  produce.  Wellhausen  has  been  at  special  pains  to 
point  out  that  whatever  in  the  sacred  history  has  a 
decidedly  religious  coloring  —  "pious"  utterances, 
"  unctious  speeches,  to  break  the  monotony,"  is  his 
fleer  at  them  ^  —  is  pure  hypocrisy,  the  work  of  an 
artist,  and  not  the  real  experience  of  living  men  who 
spoke  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

I  have  already  alluded  to  some  of  the  fraudulent 
practices  of  which  the  various  scriptural  writers,  with  no 
exception  of  age,  have  been  accused.  Deuteronomy,  a 
fabrication  of  the  seventh  century  ;  a  clever  stratagem 
to  secure  respect  for  legal  enactments  from  a  reluctant 
people.  The  Book  of  Joshua,  for  the  most  part,  a  simi- 
lar forgery  to  bolster  up  the  first.  The  Levitical  laws, 
with  their  framework  of  history,  reaching  from  the 
creation  of  the  world,  through  the  exodus,  to  the  prom- 
ised land,  essentially  a  fraud  of  the  time  of  the  exile. 
The  Books  of  Chronicles,  written  of  design  to  sustain 
this  spurious  document,  and  in  all  their  history,  which 
runs  parallel  to  that  of  the  Books  of  Samuel  and  the 
Kings,  adrodtly  keeping  up  the  mystification.  The 
Books  of  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings  themselves,  where, 
if  anywhere,  we  might  expect  genuine  history,  widely 
interpolated  and  retouched  in  the  interests  of  this  same 
counterfeit  of  the  exilian  priests.  Is  this  criticism,  or 
is  it  caricature  }  Is  it  interpreting  history,  or  is  it 
manufacturing  history  .-'  Our  Christian  instincts  revolt 
at  such  a  profanation.  How  much  is  actually  left  us  that 
will  reward  the  pains  of  investigation  .''  Where  can  we 
set  our  feet   on  really   solid   ground }     In  a   perverse 

1  See  Geschichte,  pp.  340,  347,  and  p.  309:  "Was  der  israelitischen  Geschichte 
vorzugsweise  den  Namen  der  heiligen  Geschichte  eingetragen  hat,  beruht  xumeist  auX 
nachtraglicher  Uebermalung  des  urspriinglichen  Bildes." 


Introductory.  \  J 

effort  to  show  that  the  history  must  have  taken  a 
certain  course,  the  history  itself  has  been  sacrificed. 
The  theory  has  been  adjusted,  but  at  the  expense  of 
the  facts.  In  an  effort  to  reconstruct  an  ancient  temple, 
according  to  the  rules  of  modern  taste,  a  beginning  has 
been  made  by  defacing  and  crushing  its  precious 
material,  smiting  a  cruel  pathway  through  arches,  and 
pillars,  and  statues  of  renown,  until,  at  last,  it  is  found 
that  there  is  too  little  left  to  build  so  much  as  a  credit- 
able house,  much  less  a  shrine  for  our  sweetest 
memories  and  most  sacred  hopes. 

It  is  safe  to  predict  from  the  very  start  where  those 
adopting  such  canons  of  criticism  are  sure  to  come  out. 
It  is  a  foregone  conclusion.  A  truly  serious  and  rever- 
ent scholarship  can  neither  accept  the  canons  nor  enter 
into  serious  argument  with  those  who  do.  For  a  full 
hundred  years  critics  have  been  discussing  the  text  of 
Homer  on  the  Wolfian  basis,  and  have  as  yet  failed  to 
achieve  among  themselves  an  agreement  even  in  lead- 
ing points. 1  But  how  poor  an  arena  are  the  pages  of 
Homer  for  an  active  subjectivity  to  disport  itself 
compared  with  the  Pentateuch  !  Better  far  for  us  to 
take  the  morsel  that  is  left  after  the  paring  and 
trimming  are  over,  and  try  to  nourish  our  spiritual 
being  on  it,  in  our  generation,  than  to  enter,  with  terms 
like  these,  on  a  wrangle  at  once  so  wearisome  and  so 
profitless. 

I  by  no  means  intend  to  say  that  every  individual 
who  belongs  to  this  class  of  critics  would  take  each  one 
of  these  principles  in  the  full  sense  here  explained. 
But  they  are  thoroughly  characteristic  of  the  class. 
Professor  Robertson  Smith,  it  is  likely,  would  disclaim 
being  governed    by    some    of    them.      But    Professor 

1  Cf.  TXtzWex'va.  Zeitschri/t  fur  kirchliche  Wissenscha/t^eXx..  (1882),  p.  49. 


1 8        The  Pcntateiicli :    Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Smith's  acknowledged  masters  would  not  disclaim 
them.  And  sooner  or  later,  under  the  silken  glove  of 
the  mild-mannered  Scotch  professor,  one  will  surely 
feel  the  mailed  hand  of  a  Paul  de  Lagarde  or  a  Julius 
Wellhausen. 

I  remark,  in  the  second  place,  that  it  will  be  just  as 
impossible  for  a  sober  and  candid  Christian  scholarship 
to  accept  the  style  of  interpretation  needful  to  defend 
successfully  the  theories  of  this  type  of  criticism.  It  is 
necessary  for  it,  placing  Deuteronomy  in  the  time  of 
Josiah,  and  the  Levitical  legislation  a  couple  of  centuries 
later,  to  show  that  no  slightest  trace  of  them  appears 
earlier  than  these  respective  periods.  A  single  undis- 
puted passage  in  an  earlier  book  necessarily  presuppos- 
ing their  existence  is  quite  enough  to  render  the 
argument,  which  is  mainly  an  argument  from  silence, 
null  and  void.  And  is  it  needful  to  say  to  any  student 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  that,  even  allowing  the 
widest  scope  for  the  convenient,  but  always  to  be  sus- 
pected, theory  of  interpolations  and  omissions,  it  is  here 
confronted  with  an  impossible  task  .■*  Culling  out 
individual  parts,  and  imputing  them  to  later  hands, 
however  extended  the  process,  can  never  destroy  the 
coloring  and  spirit  of  the  witnessing  records  :  the 
records  themselves  must  first  be  annihilated.  I  shall 
select  under  this  head  here  but  a  few  facts  by  way  of 
example. 

Look  first  at  the  Deuteronomic  legislation,  making 
a  definite  and  repeated  claim  to  being  Mosaic,  and 
which  our  critics  hold  for  a  product  of  king  Josiah's 
time.  It  has  laws  not  one,  but  many,  which  would  be 
utterly  senseless  as  productions  of  this  later  period. 
The  order,  for  instance,  is  given  to  Israel,  after  their 
settlement  in  Canaan  to  wipe  out  Amalek,  and  not  to 


Introductory.  19 

forget  it ;  when  in  the  time  of  Josiah  Amalek  had 
already  long  since  wholly  disappeared  from  history.^ 
They  are  also  commanded  to  destroy  the  Canaanites, 
who  had  then  ceased  to  be  of  any  importance  what- 
ever.2  A  law  is  made  against  Ammon  and  Moab,  and 
in  favor  of  Edom,  which  exactly  reverses  the  real  rela- 
tions of  these  peoples  to  Israel  in  the  time  of  Josiah.^ 
Directions  are  given  for  choosing  a  king,  it  being 
assumed  that  they  have  none,  several  hundred  years 
after  the  anointing  of  Saul.*  An  organization  of  the 
Israelitish  army  is  presupposed  wholly  out  of  place  in 
the  days  of  kingly  authority.^  Mourning  customs  are 
forbidden,  clearly  allowed  and  practised  in  the  time  of 
Josiah  and  later ;  which,  whatever  else  it  may  prove,  is 
entirely  inconsistent  with  the  theory  that  Deuteronomy 
originated  in  his  day.^  To  say  of  these  laws  that  they 
are  a  part  of  the  fictitious  coloring  given  by  the  writer 
to  his  work  that  it  might  seem  Mosaic  is  to  make  of 
the  deception  a  monstrosity,  to  no  one  more  embarrass- 
ing than  to  the  critics  themselves. 

Then  consider  the  connection  between  the  Deutero- 
nomic  and  the  Levitical  legislation.  It  is  assumed  by 
the  criticism  that  the  former  chronologically  precedes. 
It  will  be  shown,  on  the  contrary,  by  arguments  that  no 
candid  mind  will  be  likely  to  resist,  that  the  order  of 
the  Bible  is  the  actual,  chronological  order;  that  Deu- 
teronomy is  what  it  purports  to  be,  a  repetition  and 
modification,  under  other  circumstances,  of  older  laws, 
at  the  hands  of  him  who  himself  had  been  their  medium 
at  first,  and  who  therefore  had  the  right  to  modify,  as 
well  as  repeat,  them. 

•  Deut.  XXV.  17-19;  cf.  I  Sam.  xiv.  48;  xv.  2  ff. ;  xxvii.  8;  xxx.  i  f . ;   i  Chron.  iv.  43. 
2Deut.  XX.  16-18. 

*  Deut.  xxiii.  3,  4,  7,  8;  cf.  Jer.  xlviii.  47;  xlix.  6,  17,  18;   Ps.  cxxxvii.  7;  Joel  iii.  ig, 
Obad. ;  Isa.  Ixiii.  1-6.  *Deut.  xvii.  14-20.  "Deut.  xx.  9. 

"Deut.  xiv.  1,  2;  cf.  Jcr.  vil.  29;   xvi.  6;    xli.  5. 


26         TJie  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structuf^. 

It  is  said,  for  example,  in  Deuteronomy  of  the 
Levites,  that  they  are  to  have  no  inheritance  among 
their  brethren,  that  the  Lord  is  their  inheritance,  as  he 
had  said  unto  them.  Where  had  this  been  said  ?  It  is 
a  direct  citation  of  a  part  of  the  Elohistic  Torah,  falsely 
dated  in  the  time  of  the  exile.^  Elsewhere,  the  people 
are  charged  in  their  treatment  of  the  leprosy  to  observe 
implicitly,  and  do  all  that  the  Levitical  priests  should 
teach  them,  as  he  had  commanded  them.  Where  was 
this  commanded  ?  To  the  extent  of  two  whole  chapters 
in  the  Levitical  legislation,  and  nowhere  else.^  In  the 
law  relating  to  animals  clean  and  unclean,  there  is  a 
direct  dependence  of  the  Deuteronomic  on  the  Leviti- 
cal form,  an  obvious  textual  corruption  serving  to  make 
assurance  doubly  sure.^ 

In  a  law  relating  to  sacrifice  found  in  Deuteronomy, 
the  Israelites  are  prohibited  from  sacrificing  anywhere 
else  than  at  the  central  sanctuary.  But  with  the  prohi- 
bition a  concession  is  joined,  specifically  introduced  as 
a  concession,  that  they  may  slaughter  animals  for  pri- 
vate use  at  home.  The  concession  points  unequivo- 
cally back  to  the  Levitical  form  of  the  law,  which  had 
prohibited  the  killing  of  animals  at  all,  as  might  have 
been  expected  in  the  wilderness,  except  at  the  central 
sanctuary.*  In  the  Levitical  legislation  provision  had 
been  made  for  six  cities  of  refuge  in  Canaan ;  in  Deu- 
teronomy we  find  Moses  selecting  three  of  them  on  the 
east  of  Jordan,  and  strictly  enjoining  the  establishing 

^xviii.  2;  cf.  Num.  xviii.  20,  23,  and  Delitzsch  in  Zeitschrift  fur  kircliliche  Wissen- 
scha/t,  etc.  (1S80),  p.  448.  Professor  Delitzsch  has  a  series  of  Articles  on  the  Criticism  of 
the  Pentateuch,  extending  through  all  the  numbers  of  this  ZeitscJirift  for  1880,  whose  value 
cannot  well  be  overestimated.  The  same  subject  is  also  resumed  by  him  in  this  periodical 
for  the  year  1882. 

^Deut.  xxiv.  8,  9;  cf.  Lev.  xiii.,  xiv. 

^Deut.  xiv.  3-20;  cf.  Lev.  xi.  2-19,  and  Dillmann  in  his  recent  Commentary  on  Exodus 
and  Leviticus  (in  Kurzgefasstes  e.vegct.  HandbucJi). 

*Deut.  xii.  6-i5;  cf.  Lev.  xvii.  i-g. 


Introductory.  2 1 

of  the  other  three  after  the  conquest  of  the  land.^  In 
the  Levitical  code,  absurdly  imputed  to  Ezra  and  his 
colaborers,  circumcision  is  made  the  seal  of  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  already 
in  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  circumcision  has  passed 
over  from  the  natural  use  to  a  figurative  sense,  the 
people  being  called  to  circumcision  of  heart.^  In  Deu- 
teronomy, moreover,  there  are  a  number  of  explicit 
references  to  the  historical  portions  of  this  Levitical 
document.  I  say  references  to  this,  simply  because  we 
are  shut  up  to  such  a  conclusion.  They  are  references 
to  something.  They  correspond  in  matter  and  in  minute 
distinctions  of  form  to  it.  And  there  is  absolutely 
nothing  else  that  we  know  of  to  which  they  could  refer.^ 
And  now,  how  is  such  a  line  of  argument  met  by  our 
critics .''  Sometimes  with  evasions ;  sometimes  with 
depreciation,  or  a  denial  of  pertinency.  When  this  is 
impossible,  there  is  a  resort  to  the  elastic  theory  of  in- 
terpolations. Deuteronomy  has  been  manipulated  in 
the  interests  of  the  later  documents ;  or,  there  are 
omissions  in  the  original  Jahvist  document  which,  if 
extant,  would  be  found  to  have  furnished  the  foundation 
on  which  Deuteronomy  built.  I  have  marked,  in  fact, 
a  number  of  instances  whei^e,  to  avoid  the  conclusion  to 
them  impossible,  that  Deuteronomy  depends  on  other 
parts  of  the  Pentateuch,  which  they  assign  to  the  exile, 
some  of  the  brightest  of  these  men  have  taken  refuge 
in  this  asylum  for  imbeciles,  an  hypothesis  of  omissions 
in  a  document  of  which  they  can  know  literally  nothing 
but  what  is  written  in  the  Bible.^     Could  there,  indeed, 

'Deut.  iv.  41;  xix.  1-13;  cf.  Num.  xxxv. 

^  Deut.  X.  16;  XXX.  6,  as  in  Jer.  iv.  4;  ix.  26. 

'  Deut.  X.  22;  cf.  Gen,  xlvi.  27;  Deut.  i.  23;  cf.  Num.  xiii,  3  ff. ;  Deut.  x.  i,  2;  cf.  Ex. 
xxxiv.  I. 

*  See  last  citation  of  passages,  and  with  Gen.  xxxiv,  15,  cf.  Gen,  xvii.  10  (Wellhausen, 
Geschichte,  p.  364  f.). 


22  The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

be  an  audacity  more  astounding  ?  They  scout  the  idea 
of  supernaturalism  and  miracle  in  the  scriptures,  and  yet 
arrogate  to  themselves  the  very  attributes  of  Deity  ! 

Sidney  Smith  si^eaks  of  some  one  whose  forte  was 
science,  but  whose  foible  was  omniscience.  Now,  what- 
ever the  forte  of  our  critics  may  be,  they  certainly  have 
a  very  decided  foible  for  omniscience.  They  claim  to 
be  able  not  only  to  tell  us  exactly,  and  by  the  score, 
where  passages  have  been  inserted  in  the  text,  and  the 
hand  that  did  it,  but,  something  inconceivable  to  any 
one  but  God  alone,  where  they  have  been  left  out.  And 
this  to  us  is  the  vital  point  of  the  matter :  they  must  be 
able  to  know,  and  to  tell  us,  as  much  as  this,  or  their 
theory  is  worthless  for  the  conclusions  they  seek  to 
establish. 

If  we  move  downward  from  the  Deuteronomic  period, 
we  shall  find  it  just  as  hard  to  make  our  way  along  the 
track  of  Israelitish  history  without  the  postulate  of  its 
code,  and  the  elder  one  on  which  it  clearly  rests.  The 
temple  of  Solomon  in  its  furnishing,  its  peculiar  rites  of 
dedication,  its  swarming  priests  and  Levites,  who  with- 
out instruction  know  each  his  place  and  duty,  is  nothing 
less  than  a  glaring  anomaly  in  history,  if  this  hypothesis 
be  true.  And  why  the  scathing  denunciations  of  Jero- 
boam, the  separatist,  who,  with  his  golden  calves  at  Dan 
and  Bethel  sought  to  breed  political  discord  among  the 
people  by  pandering  to  an  idolatrous  taste  }  Why  is  he 
reproved  for  devising  "of  his  own  heart"  a  festival  on 
the  eighth  month,  except  that  he  did  it  in  contravention 
and  defiance  of  one  already  legally,  that  is  Levitically, 
ordered  for  the  seventh  .■'  Why  did  his  memory  haunt, 
like  an  evil  spectre,  all  the  subsequent  history  of  Israel 
to  the  very  end,  so  that  the  writer  of  the  Books  of  Kings 
can  utter  no  heavier  censure  over  its  wickedest  rulers 
than  that  they  walked  in  the  steps  of  Jeroboam,  the  son 


Introductory.  23 

of  Nebat,  who  caused  Israel  to  sin  ?  There  can  be  but 
one  answer.  There  was  an  acknowledged  law  against 
which  he  was  a  conspicuous  and  arrant  offender. 

The  existence  of  such  a  law  is  not  only  proved  by  a 
certain  line  of  conduct  which  is  everywhere  branded  as 
transgression,  but  also  by  numerous  efforts  at  reform  in 
the  express  direction  of  this  code.  Jehoash  was  a  re- 
former, and  Amaziah,  and  Azariah,  and  above  all  Heze- 
kiah,  the  very  last  of  whom  lived  a  full  hundred  years 
before  our  critics'  date  of  Deuteronomy.  They  have  a 
single  aim.  They  face  one  way,  and  that,  the  way  of 
the  Mosaic  laws.  Their  fault  was  never  one  of  direction, 
but  solely  of  lack  of  force  and  thoroughness.  Again 
and  again  are  they  rebuked  for  stopping  short  of  the 
goal ;  altars  were  still  left  to  blaze  for  Baal  as  well  as 
God. 

Josiah  himself,  claimed  as  the  first  great  reformer 
under  Deuteronomic  inspiration,  is  simply  one  in  a  loyal 
line  that  reaches  back  to  Samuel  and  the  heroic  judges 
who  preceded  him.  He  had  no  suspicion  that  he  was 
undertaking  what  was  new.  It  was  over  a  broken  and 
disregarded  law,  which  ought  to  have  been  supreme  in 
Israel,  that  he  rent  his  clothes,  humbled  himself,  and 
wept  in  sorrow  and  penitence. 

Our  critics  have,  also,  the  wonder  of  the  Psalter  to 
explain,  which  certainly  had  its  beginning  considerably 
before  the  sixth  century,  and  yet  echoes  and  reechoes 
in  every  part  the  Mosaic  law.  One  of  its  psalms  recog- 
nizes every  form  of  sacrifice  known  to  the  ritual  of 
Leviticus,  save  one.  In  its  fivefold  division  it  is  directly 
based  on  the  Pentateuch.  Its  proem  is  a  psalm  describ- 
ing the  blessedness  of  him  whose  delight  is  in  the  law 
of  the  Lord;  and  elsewhere,  as  we  believe  through  the 
lips  of  David  himself,  it  breaks  forth  into  ecstatic  praise 


24         The  PentateiLcJi :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

of  it:  "The  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect  converting  the 
soul."  "The  statutes  of  the  Lord  are  right,  rejoicing 
the  heart." 

If  a  single  one  of  the  earlier  psalms  can  be  shown  to 
rest  upon  the  Torah  rather  than  on  the  teachings  of  the 
prophets,  that  of  itself  is  enough  to  overthrow  the  main 
positions  of  our  critics.  And  a  great  deal  more  than 
this  is  possible. 

Take  an  example  from  them,  the  eighth,  which  by 
almost  universal  consent  is  ascribed  to  David.  Note 
carefully  the  line  of  thought  along  which  it  moves.  It 
is  a  night  scene.  The  gaze  of  the  shepherd  and  poet  is 
fixed  on  the  spangled  skies:  "When  I  consider  thy 
heavens,  the  work  of  thy  fingers  ;  moon  and  stars  which 
thou  hast  ordained  ;  What  is  man,  that  thou  art  mindful 
of  him  .-*  and  the  son  of  man  that  thou  visitest  him  .-* 
For  thou  didst  make  him  a  little  lower  than  God,  and 
crownedst  him  with  glory  and  honor.  Thou  madest 
him  to  have  dominion  over  the  works  of  thy  hands," 
What  amazing  language  is  this  !  How  does  David  know 
these  things  .-•  How  does  he,  in  the  wildest  flights  of 
fancy,  dare  to  say  that  man  has  been  made  but  a  little 
lower  than  God  }  He  had  gratefully  read  it,  where  we 
may  still  read  it  to-day,  in  the  opening  chapter  of  the 
Bible,  whose  thought  not  only  he  appropriates,  but  the 
precise  order  of  it.  Yet  these  very  words  of  Genesis 
are  an  inseparable  part  of  the  document  assigned  by  our 
critics  to  the  period  of  the  exile,  six  hundred  years  after 
the  reign  of  David. 

And  aside  from  the  individual  psalms,  they  must 
tell  us  how  the  collection  came  to  reach  in  Israel 
that  high  plane  of  spiritual  feeling  and  utterance, 
which  has  never  yet  been  passed,  and  that  amidst 
the   densest    moral  darkness   of    neighboring  peoples. 


In  tro  ductory.  2  5 

There  is  but  one  Psalter  for  the  whole  Bible.  And 
it  has  proved  sufficient.  Its  buttresses  are  deep  and 
strong  enough  to  bear  up  a  structure  that  was  twenty- 
centuries  building ;  its  invisible  arch  lofty  enough 
to  cover  the  grandest  architectures  of  prophetic  vision 
and  of  Christian  hope.  On  any  principle  of  develop- 
ment, let  them  inform  us,  if  the  Mosaic  laws  and 
institutions  were  not  behind  it,  what  was  behind  it,  to 
push  it  upward,  before  the  period  of  the  exile,  and  to 
some  extent  before  the  acme  of  prophetical  influence 
had  been  reached,  to  such  a  pitch  of  moral  grandeur,  to 
such  hitherto  unknown  ideas  of  God  and  man's  relations 
to  him  } 

What  long  stretches  of  time,  what  mighty  moral 
forces,  what  terrible  wrestlings  of  the  human  spirit 
must  have  gone  before  that  story  of  temptation  and 
blessed  escape  found  in  the  seventy-third  Psalm  ! 
What  an  experience  of  precious  rest  in  God,  whose 
sweet  depth  no  plummet  has  since  fully  sounded,  is 
found  in  Psalm  twenty-third  !  How  striking,  and  how 
Christian  withal,  the  solution  of  the  mystery  of  individ- 
ual immortality  conveyed  in  the  words  :  "  Whom  have 
I  in  heaven  but  Thee  !  .  .  .  My  flesh  and  my  heart 
faileth  :  God  is  the  strength  of  my  heart  and  my  portion 
forever."  First  a  house,  then  a  church,  is  the  maxim 
of  our  critics.  But  surely  here  is  an  altar  and  holiest 
worship,  souls  who  pant  after  God.  Here  are  songs  in 
every  key,  from  the  tumultuous  depths  to  serenest 
heights,  and  hearts  to  feel  them  and  voices  to  sing 
them.  And  here  is  he  who  dwcllcth  not  in  temples 
made  with  hands  ;  who  inhabiteth  the  praises  of  Israel  ; 
and  dwelleth  with  him  that  is  of  a  contrite  heart  and 
who  trembleth  at  his  word. 

Then,  further,  those  who  are  seeking  to  make  every- 


26  TIic  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 


'<i' 


thing  clear  on  the  principle  of  natural  development 
have  not  only  the  anomaly  of  reforming  kings  without 
a  standard  of  reform  and  the  furnished  temple  of  the 
Psalter  without  priesthood  or  ritual  to  explain,  but  also 
the  attitude  and  work  of  the  preexilian  prophets. 
They,  it  is  claimed,  were  the  real  sources  of  Israelitish 
history  and  religion.  Who  and  what  were  their 
sources  .'*  Moses  was  too  great,  too  developed  a  char- 
acter to  have  arisen  in  the  period  of  the  exodus  !  What 
a  soil,  then,  the  period  of  the  judges  for  such  a  growth 
as  that  of  Samuel !  Whence  came  Elijah  the  Tishbite  ? 
and  Obadiah  and  Joel,  Amos  and  Hosea,  Isaiah  and 
Micah .''  Unlike  in  natural  gifts  and  training,  they 
were  yet  impelled  by  one  spirit ;  uttered  really  but  one 
message.  Prophets  of  two  fiercely  rival  kingdoms, 
they  never  waver  in  their  loyalty  to  one  invariable 
standard  and  to  one  King.^  It  was  Amos  of  Judah 
who,  while  tending  his  flocks  in  Tekoa,  heard  the  call 
of  God,  and  hurried  to  confront  the  haughty  king  of 
Israel  and  his  false  priests  at  Bethel.  It  was  Elijah  of 
Israel  who  won  from  the  people  of  Judah  such  love  and 
reverence  that,  to  this  day,  in  certain  ceremonies, 
their  descendants  still  set  for  him  a  chair  as  an  invisi- 
ble guest.2 

What  gave  to  these  men  this  unity  of  spirit,  this  fiery 
zeal,  this  mysterious  power  over  kings  and  people  ^ 
What  was  it  that  took  away  all  sense  of  fear  in  the 
discharge  of  duty }  Whence  that  idea  of  solemn, 
imperative  duty .?  It  was  the  Mosaic  law  given 
amidst  the  awful  sanctions  of  Mount  Sinai,  that  was  at 
once  their  bond  and  inspiration  ;  that  ruled  them  and 
heartened    them.     They    severally    make    direct    and 

^  The  order  of   the  Minor  Prophets  is  particularly  to  be  noted,  a  prophet   of  Israel 
being  joined  with  one  of  Judah,  with  obvious  intent. 

-  Qi.  Delitzsch,  OldTest.  History  of  Redemption,  p.  up. 


Introditctory.  27 

unmistakable  allusions  to  it,  or  its  essential  historic 
setting.!  All  their  utterances  are  based  on  such  a 
presupposition.  They  recognize  a  covenant  made  with 
God  through  Mosaic  mediation.  That  covenant  had 
not  been  kept.  Their  whole  activity  proclaims  a  per- 
verse trend  of  thought  and  conduct  against  which  they 
relentlessly  fight,  one  and  all.  Founders  of  a  religion 
they  were  not,  and  could  not  be,  men  like  these,  without 
a  sign  of  collusion  ;  but  mighty  reformers  they  were, 
who  set  their  faces  like  a  flint  against  a  prevailing 
degeneracy  and  lapse  of  the  people  whom  God  had 
chosen  for  his  own,^ 

Caroline  Fox,  in  her  Memories,  tells  of  a  Quaker  of 
literary  turn  who  would  not  undertake  a  translation  of 
the  Iliad  lest  he  should  catch  the  martial  spirit  of  its 
heroes.  Our  critics,  so  far  from  catching  the  spirit  of  the 
Hebrew  prophets,  have  not  seemed  able  even  to  under- 
stand their  teaching  in  its  distinguishing  features.  To 
overlook  the  higher  truth  in  their  burning  metaphors 
and  startling  paradoxes,  and  charge  them  with  hostility 
to  the  idea  of  sacrifice  because  they  denounce  an 
unworthy  dependence  on  altar  gifts  as  an  opus  operatum, 
and  properly  brand  the  sacrifices  of  the  wicked  as  an 
abomination,^  is  not  only  to  bring  them  into  conflict 
with  themselves,^  but  also  with   the  whole  current  of 

^  Amos  ii.  lo;  Hos.  xii.  13;  Mic.  vi.  4;  vii.  15. 

*Cf.  Watson,  The  Law  and  the  Prophets,  p.  79 :  "  If  you  deprive  the  prophets  of  the 
one  book  on  which  their  teaching  could  be  founded,  how  do  you  account  for  the  prophets 
and  their  teaching?  You  frame  a  theory  which  accounts  for  the  composition  of  the 
Pentateuch  on  naturaUslic  principles;  but  in  so  doing  you  cut  the  ground  from  under  the 
prophets'  feet.  The  prophets  had  to  learn  before  they  could  teach;  what  was  their  text- 
book? Not  the  law;  it  had  to  be  fabricated.  Not  the  history  (at  least  with  the  earlier 
prophets),  for  it  had  yet  to  be  written  in  the  true  spirit.  By  whom  then  were  the 
prophets  taught?  By  the  direct  inspiration  of  Uod  apart  from  all  human  means?  That 
is  the  only  answer  the  modern  critics  have  left  for  themselves,  an  answer  which  they 
certainly  will  not  give." 

^  Cf.  Prov.  xxi.  27. 

*  Cf.  Green,  Moses  and  the  Prophets, -p.  147  f.  ;  Watts,  The  Newer  Crzticis>n,p.  83  fT 


28  The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Orisrin  and  Structure. 


'<i ' 


biblical  teaching,  from  the  lesson  of  those  first  offerings 
of  Cain  and  Abel  to  the  words  of  Him  who  made  love 
to  be  more  than  all  whole  burnt-offerings  and  sacri- 
fices (Mark  xii.  33). 

Still  further,  these  critics,  who  make  the  Mosaic  law 
essentially  a  product  of  the  post-exilan  Judaism,  have 
to  explain  what  has  been  noted  as  a  conspicuous  pecu- 
liarity of  the  Hebrew  people  as  of  no  other  people, 
stamped  on  their  whole  history  from  the  beginning, 
through  this  very  period,  too,  when  if  there  was  no  law 
there  could  be  no  transgression :  a  peculiarly  active 
conscience,  and  that  an  evil  conscience ;  "  a  feeling  of 
guilt ;  a  feeling  that  a  lofty  task  had  been  assigned 
them,  which  they  neither  can  nor  will  perform ;  a 
feeling  of  contrariety  between  knowledge  and  will,  so 
that  sins  are  heaped  on  sins."^  What  could  have  so 
awakened  this  feeling  in  them  of  all  the  ancient 
peoples  that  we  know,  so  that  it  must  be  recognized 
as  one  of  the  dominant  factors  of  their  history,  before 
the  exile  as  after  the  exile  ?  It  was  the  coming  in  of 
the  law,  to  state  it  as  Paul  does  in  Romans,  that  made 
the  transgression  abound,  that  kept  the  conscience, 
even  though  an  evil  conscience,  alert,  an  unsilenced 
oracle  of  power  and  dread  within,  and  brought  ever 
heavier  burdens  of  guilt  upon  them,  till  they  should 
come  at  last  to  Him  who  is  the  end  of  the  law  for 
righteousness  to  every  one  that  believeth. 

Now  these  are  things  which  we  find  in  the  books 
themselves,  an  inseparable  and  undeniable  part  of  the 
records ;  and  they  militate  decisively  against  the  theory 
we  have  been  considering.  If  the  theory  be  true,  they 
ought  not  to  be  there,  and  could  not  be  there.  But 
there   they  are.      No  hypothesis   of  interpolations  or 

1  So  De  Welte  in  Stttd.  u.  Kritiken  (1833),  p.  1003. 


fntroductory.  29 

omissions  can  affect  the  most  of  them  any  more  than 
it  would  the  history  written  in  stone,  of  a  Sargon  or  a 
Sennacherib.  They  are  wholly  beyond  the  critic's  art. 
It  is  a  spirit  that  breathes  and  moves  outside  the 
letter;  that  utters  itself,  indeed,  in  words,  but  yet  is 
something  more  than  words,  and  will  still  live  on,  con- 
fuse and  mutilate  the  letter  as  you  will.  It  is  a  myste- 
rious coloring  reaching  to  deepest  depths,  and  can  no 
more  be  blotted  out  than  its  radiant  blue  can  be  wiped 
Ifi^m  the  summer's  sky. 

Finally,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  a  really  sober  Christian 
scholarship  will  never  abandon  a  position  against  which 
so  little  valid  objection  can  be  urged  for  one  involving 
the  extraordinary  inconsistencies  of  that  before  us.  I 
do  not  deny  that  there  will  be  difficulties  with  any 
theory  which  would  account  for  the  origin  and  struc- 
ture of  a  work  of  the  character  of  this,  antedating  all 
other  native  records.  But  it  is  neither  reasonable  nor 
in  any  true  sense  scientific,  if  there  be  a  feasible  way 
of  harmonizing  the  documents  as  they  are,  to  reject 
the  solemn  and  oft-repeated  testimony  which  they  give 
of  themselves,  sustained  as  it  is  by  all  the  historical 
evidence  accessible  to  us,  Jewish  and  Christian,  to  take 
refuge  in  an  hypothetical  scheme  such  as  we  have  been 
considering. 

I  have  already  pointed  out  a  few  of  the  sacred 
objects,  supposably  established  truths,  some  of  them, 
as  it  seems  to  me,  fundamental  to  the  Christian  faith, 
as  well  as  whole  books  of  Scripture,  that  it  has  been 
found  needful  to  offer  up  to  this  imperious  theory. 
The  list  is  not  yet  exhausted.  The  Book  of  Joel,  until 
of  late,  has  been  held  by  the  almost  unanimous  con- 
sent  of  scholars  to  be  among  the  very  oldest  of  the 
prophets.     A  critic  now  among  the  adherents  of  Well- 


j,o 


The  Pentateuch :  Its  Orizin  and  Structure. 


'&> ' 


hausen  wrote  a  work  as  late  as  1875  ^  in  defence  of  this 
position.  But  Joel  recognizes  no  other  place  of  wor- 
ship  than  Jerusalem  ;  lays  great  stress  on  sacrifices, 
regarding  it  as  something  to  be  bewailed  when  they  are 
hindered  ;  names  the  people  by  the  so-called  Elohistic 
term,  QdJidl,  congregation.  Hence,  Joel  can  be  no  pre- 
exilian  prophet.  He  must  move  down,  and  still  further 
down,  and  take  his  place  among  the  very  last  and 
lowest.2  It  is  the  exigency  of  the  theory,  mind  )ifi.y, 
that  makes  this  requirement,  nothing  else.  It  is  1^1% 
dilemma  into  which  they  would  be  brought  who  say 
that  no  traces  of  this  "  Code  of  the  Priests  "  are  discov- 
erable before  the  exile,  if  this  mighty  prophet  of  Judah 
were  allowed  to  stand  in  his  place  and  give  his  testi- 
mony. 

A  similar  exigency  accounts  for  the  misplacing  of 
another  quite  as  important  portion  of  Scripture — the 
patriarchal  history  and  its  sequel  in  Exodus  and  other 
books.  It  is  supposed  to  belong,  largely,  as  I  have 
said,  to  this  "Code  of  the  Priests"  made  up  in  the 
exile.  But  there  was  a  time  when  our  critics  took 
another  view.  They  dated  only  the  Levitical  code  of 
laws  so  late.  But  it  was  shown  them,  and  they  were 
compelled  at  the  edge  of  the  sword  to  yield  the  point, 
that,  unless  all  critical  principles  hitherto  acknowledged 
as  valid  were  abandoned,  the  history  must  go  with  the 
code.  They  were  an  inseparable  part  of  the  same 
Elohistic  document. 3     And  so,  humbly,  but  as  we  may 

'Smend,  Moses  apud  Prophetas,  Halis.  Cf.  also  his  "  Ueber  die  von  den  Propheten 
des  achten  Jahrhunderts  vorausgesetzte  Ent wickelungsstufe  der  israelii.  Religion  "  in  Stud, 
u.  Kritikcn  for  1876.  In  his  Commentary,  Der  Prophet  Ezechicl  (1860),  however,  he 
goes  wholly  over  to  the  theory  of  Wellhausen. 

^Cf.  Mcrx,  Die  Proph.  des  Joel  iind  Hirer  Ausleger,  Halle,  1879;  Stade,  De  Populo 
Javan  (academical  Programme),  Giessen,  18S0;  and  Delitzsch's  Article  on  the  other  side, 
in  the  Lutherische  Zeitschrift  (1851),  "  Zwei  sichere  Ergebnisse  im  Betreff  der  Weissa- 
gungsschrift  Joels." 

3  See  Riehm's  Article  in  review  of  Graf,  in  Stud.  u.  Kritiken  (1868),  pp.  350-379- 


Introductory.  3  ^ 

well  believe  far  from  thankfully,  they  took  the  history. 
An  exigency  of  another  sort  was  upon  them.  But,  if  I 
mistake  not,  they  have  plunged  themselves  thereby 
into  vastly  greater  difficulties,  wholly  unforeseen  at 
first.  It  has  obliged  them  to  separate  themselves  from 
some  of  the  very  ablest  of  their  friends,  who  still  regard 
this  history  as  among  the  oldest  parts  of  the  Bible.  It 
has  forced  them  to  reverse  the  old-time  order  of  Elohist 
and  Jehovist,  and  thus  to  leave  at  the  chronological 
head  of  the  Bible  those  two  infinitely  weighty  chapters 
of  Genesis  which  are  the  record  of  the  Fall  and  its 
accompanying  promise  justly  claimed  to  be  of  more 
importance  than  the  whole  Pentateuch  besides.  More 
than  all,  we  have  in  this  very  Elohistic  history  itself  a 
document  which  carries  within  it  the  condemnation  of 
the  hypothesis.  It  simply  does  not  agree,  on  any 
principles  of  theirs,  with  the  laws  to  which  they  have 
reluctantly  joined  it.  As  actual  history  of  those 
ancient  times,  it  is  intelligible,  and  can  be  accounted 
for ;  but  as  an  invention  of  the  time  of  the  exile,  to 
preface  and  introduce  the  Levitical  legislation,  it  is 
preposterous !  The  contents  of  these  chapters  are 
heterogeneous.  Their  teachings  respecting  sacrifice ; 
the  technical  names  they  apply  to  various  offerings ; 
the  practices  they  allow  or  forbid,  in  other  respects, 
and  their  whole  point  of  view  can  be  harmonized  on  no 
such  supposition.  The  man,  or  the  set  of  men,  capable 
of  originating  the  legislation  of  Leviticus  and  Numbers 
in  the  fifth  century  b.c,  or  in  any  other  century,  cer- 
tainly was  incapable  of  so  absurd  a  thing  as  to  invent 
the  history  that  precedes  it  as  its  introduction,  or  find- 
ing it  at  hand  consciously  to  use  it  as  such.^ 

1  Sec  Article  by  Delitzsch  "  Opfer,"  in  Riolim's  Handivbrtcrbuch  des  Bib.Altertunn, 
p.  1114.  Cf.  Watson,  ibid.  p.  194  f.  He  says  of  the  theological  ideas  of  the  Patriarchs: 
"Did  the  patriarchs  realize  the  idea  of  God's  omnipresence?    Genesis  teaches  us  thii 


32  The  Pentateuch:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

And  then,  besides,  there  is  the  abnormity  of  reasoning, 
as  these  critics  do,  about  this  "Code  of  the  Priests." 
They  claim  that  it  is  essentially  a  fiction,  written  to 
compass  certain  ends.  It  has  its  nucleus  in  the  taber- 
nacle and  its  rites,  which  never  really  existed,  since  it 
is  only  a  reflection  of  Solomon's  temple  projected  back 
into  the  Mosaic  age.  But,  forthwith,  they  go  on  to 
reason  about  the  document  as  though  it  were  actual 
history,  able  to  sustain  the  weightiest  historical  conclu- 
sions. They  tell  us  of  the  emphasis  it  lays  on  the 
centralization  of  worship,  on  the  distinction  it  makes 
between  the  priests  and  Levites,  and  the  like,  and 
insist  that  this  shows  an  historical  development  appro- 
priate only  to  the  time  of  the  exile.  But,  if  the  "  Code 
of  the  Priests  "  be  fiction,  then  it  is  not  a  history.  And 
if  it  invented  the  story  of  the  tabernacle  and  made  it 
Mosaic  simply  for  effect,  who  shall  say  that  it  did  not 
invent  the  distinction  between  the  priests  and  the 
Levites,  and  all  the  other  details,  also  for  effect  t  Who 
has  a  right  to  pronounce  just  where  fancy  ends  and  fact 
begins?  It  would  appear  that  our  boasted  critical 
method  is  again  at  fault.  True  it  is,  that  a  romance 
may  take  the  coloring  of  its  time,  and  teach  us  history. 

truth,  but  the  Patriarchs  had  hardly  learned  it;  cf.  Gen.  iii.  8;  iv.  i6;  xvi.  13;  xviii.  21. 
Did  they  regard  God  as  one  who  searches  the  hearts  and  reins?  The  same  answer  may 
be  given.  Notice  how  God  is  represented  as  arriving  at  the  knowledge  of  the  guilt  of 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah  (Gen.  xviii.  20-22).  Observe  the  difference  of  tone  between  Abra- 
ham's simple  and  childlike  expostulations  with  God  in  Gen.  xviii.  23,  etc.,  and  the  deep 
heart-searchings  and  anxious  intercessions  of  the  prophets."  He  remarks  further  of  their 
idolatrous  sysieins.  "  Image  worship  is  not  unknown,  and  there  are  such  things  as 
'strange  gods.'  But  idolatry  is  not  the  sin  of  the  age.  No  idolatrous  system  is  presented 
to  our  notice,  the  names  of  no  false  gods  appear.  The  sinners  of  the  age,  the  antedilu- 
vians and  the  inhabitants  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  are  not  described  as  worshipers  of 
false  gods,  but  as  offenders  against  fundamental  principles  of  morality.  Here  is  a  strong 
proof  of  genuineness.  .  .  .  What  an  irresistible  temptation  it  would  be  to  the  later  pro- 
phetic historian  of  the  critical  theory  to  utilize  the  flood  and  the  destruction  of  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah,  in  his  attack  against  the  sin  of  his  age  —  idolatry."  Watson  illustrates 
the  same  principle  in  the  matter  of  political  ideas,  the  nature  of  sin,  and  the  absence  oj 
r^erence  to  persons  and  institutions  of  a  later  date. 


Introductory.  33 

But  when  we  have  only  the  work  itself  to  depend  upon, 
who  may  decide  where  to  draw  the  line  ?  How,  espe^ 
cially,  can  we  know  in  the  case  of  an  imaginative  writer 
like  the  present,  who  would  carry  us  back  into  the 
Mosaic  age,  how  much  the  castles  in  the  air  he  builds 
will  be  modeled  on  principles  that  rule  in  his  own,  and 
how  much  be  the  reflection  of  other,  times  ?  ^ 

Still  further,  we  find  it  just  as  anomalous  and  incon- 
sistent to  claim,  as  this  theory  does,  that  works  like 
ours  should  be  imputed  to  Moses  at  all.  Who  was 
Moses  ?  According  to  the  theory  (at  least  as  devel- 
oped by  its  principal  advocates),  a  half-mythical  hero 
living  away  back  beyond  the  barbarous  period  of  the 
judges  whose  mysterious  figure  is  abnormally  enlarged 
by  the  mists  that  envelop  it.  Why,  then,  this  feverish 
anxiety  of  a  people  through  a  whole  millennium  to 
attribute  their  highest  achievements  in  legislation  to 
him  who  was  at  home  in  a  period  that  knew  no  law .'' 
No  one  thinks  of  imputing  the  Magna  Charta  of  Eng- 
land to  Arthur  of  the  Round  Table.  What  gives  to 
Moses  a  right  to  so  high  a  position,  when  we  must  go 
by  the  royal  David  and  the  great  Samuel  to  reach  him  t 
And  why  especially  fictitiously  ascribe  to  him  two  great 
codes  of  laws  so  diverse,  and  from  this  point  of  view  so 
contradictory,  as  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  and  the 
"  Code  of  the  Priests."  For  we  can  understand  how 
Moses  himself  after  the  experience  of  twice  a  score  of 
years  might  modify,  on  entering  Canaan,  his  own 
statutes.  But  that  a  priest  of  the  time  of  the  exile,  or 
a  company  of  priests,  should  seek  to  palm  off  as  Mosaic 
the  Levitical  legislation  on  a  reluctating  people,  in  the 
face   of   Deuteronomy   already,   a   little    while    before, 

1  This  argument  has  been  well  put  by  Kittel,  in  Theologische  Studien  aus  Wurtetn- 
berg  (1881),  pp.  40,  151  f. 


34         The  PentatencJi :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

ostensibly  received  as  Mosaic,  would  be  the  height  of 
absurdity  ;  it  would  be  invoking  the  name  and  authority 
of  Moses  for  that  which  was  demonstrably  un-Mosaic. 

This  course  appears  still  more  unreasonable  when  it 
is  noted  that  our  critics  are  making  ever  less  of  the 
man  of  whom  the  books  themselves  have  made  so 
much.  Until  of  late  a  modicum  of  Pentateuch  laws  has 
been  allowed  a  great  antiquity,  at  least  in  an  oral  form. 
This  is  true  of  the  so-called  Book  of  the  Covenant,  that 
is,  four  chapters  in  Exodus  including  the  ten  command- 
ments. But  now  there  is  a  weakening  also  here, 
Wellhausen  seeing  no  good  reason  why  the  Mosaic 
origin  even  of  the  ten  commandments  should  be  main- 
tained.^ What  is  the  cause  .-'  One  reason  is  obvious  : 
the  existence  of  the  ten  commandments,  especially  the 
second  of  them,  cannot  be  made  to  harmonize  with  the 
supposed  earlier  attitude  of  Israel  toward  idolatry. 
And  do  not  all  these  ancient  documents  mysteriously 
"hang  together,"  to  use  an  expression  of  the  critics.-' 
Place  side  by  side  this  Book  of  the  Covenant  and  the 
"Code  of  the  Priests."  Is  there  any  falling  off  ?  Are 
not  the  ten  words  fully  up  in  form  and  spirit  to  any 
part  of  it  ?  But  admit  a  Moses  of  the  ten  command- 
ments, and  their  Sinaitic  setting,  and  where  can  we 
stop,  where  is  our  theory  of  development }  We  have 
admitted  the  work  of  a  master,  and  we  must  admit  the 
master  himself.  We  have  a  monument  chiseled  in 
stone  that  we  are  still  proud  to  set  high  above  any  work 
of  uninspired  genius  —  there  must  have  been  an  artist, 
too,  greater  and  nobler  than  his  work. 

I  find  another  inconsistency  quite  as  great  in  the 
fact  that  this  "  Code  of  the  Priests  "  is  ascribed  by  our 
critics  to  the  time  of  the  exile.     Why  there  especially  ? 

'  Encyclopedia  Britannica,  vol.  xiii.  p.  399. 


Introductory.  35 

Objections  to  placing  it  there  are  numerous  enough, 
and  not  one  reason  for  it,  if  you  accept  the  simple 
matter  of  getting,  in  this  way,  the  time  required  by 
such  a  theory  of  development.  Outside  of  this  sup- 
posed production,  there  is  not  in  the  entire  period  the 
first  trace  of  any  Mosaic  tradition.  One  will  look  in 
vain  in  the  Books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  for  a  single 
suggestion  of  the  possibility  of  such  an  enterprise  as 
this.  The  Torah  Ezra  introduces  is  conspicuously  the 
old  Mosaic.  That  part  of  it  now  called  the  "  Code  of 
the  Priests  "  is  never  even  cited  in  his  writings.  It  is 
obviously  not  that  which  is  mirrored  in  the  peculiar 
legislation  of  the  exile  ;  is  even  directly  opposed  to  it  in 
some  important  respects.  The  high-priest  of  these  post- 
exilian  books,  for  instance,  is  far  from  holding  the 
commanding  place  assigned  in  the  Levitical  law.  The 
whole  organization  of  the  priesthood  has  undergone  a 
decided  change  —  new  offices  with  new  names,  Nethi- 
nim,  Sopherim,  various  leaders  of  music,  being  intro 
duced  of  which  this  "Code  of  the  Priests"  knows 
nothing. 

So  that,  aside  from  the  serious  difficulty  of  explain- 
ing how  a  work  could  have  been  written  in  the  exile 
without  a  sign  of  the  grammatical  forms,  syntax,  and 
language  of  that  period,  but  agreeing  exactly  in  its 
archaisms  with  the  oldest  portions  of  the  Pentateuch, 
we  have  this  still  weightier  objection,  of  its  essential, 
material  inappropriateness  to  the  age  said  to  have 
produced  it  as  the  culmination  of  a  process  then  reach- 
ing its  bloom.  The  conclusion  is  scarcely  to  be 
resisted  that  here,  again,  an  awkward  theory  needed  to 
be  accommodated.  Our  critics  have  at  last  simply 
unloaded  at  this  point,  with  an  apparent  sense  of  relief, 
a  document  which  they  had  tried  in  vain  to  adjust  to 


$6  The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

every  previous  age  succeeding  Moses.  This  age,  too, 
equally  protests  against  it ;  simply  will  not  have  it ; 
scornfully  repels  with  a  reforming  zeal,  heightened  by 
seventy  years  of  exile,  a  literary  imposture  thus  ground- 
lessly  charged  upon  it. 

An  important  fact  seems  to  have  been  strangely  over- 
looked thus  far  in  this  whole  discussion :  that  the  time 
of  the  exile  was  the  period  when,  as  it  is  universally 
agreed,  the  synagogues  came  into  prominence.     Long 
musing  by  the  rivers  of   Babylon  had  borne  its  fruit. 
Under  the  common  guidance  of  priest  and  prophet  it 
was  beneath  the  open  sky  that  prayer  had  been  wont 
to  be  made.     The  false  idea  that  worship  was  solely  a 
matter  of  priestly  functions  and  of  brilliant  shrines  had 
been  effectually  exploded.     Not  alone  the  hard  lot  of 
exiles,  but  the  disappointment  of  the  second  temple  had 
brought  it  about,  and  the  spiritual  lesson   which    the 
seers  of  Judah  and  Israel  alike  had  all  along  been  striv- 
ing to  teach  was  at  last  acknowledged  :  that  to  under- 
stand the  law  and  do  it  was  more  than  all  burnt-offering-. 
On  his  return  from  Babylon,  it  was  Ezra  himself  who 
set  the  example  of  liberty  from  ceremonial  observances. 
At  the  very  time  when,  as  our  critics  think,  he  was  sur- 
reptitiously introducing  a  priestly  code  of  his  own,  from 
his  pulpit  of  wood  before  the  water-gate,  he  was  acting 
in  positive  contravention  of  its  exclusive  spirit.     Under 
the  very  shadow  of  the  temple  he  was  doing  that  for 
which  these  laws  would  have  pointed  him  to  the  temple 
courts. 

The  same  century  could  never  have  produced  on  any 
theory  of  development  tendencies  so  directly  antago- 
nistic—  the  centripetal  and  centrifugal.  A  "Code  of 
the  Priests  "  can  never  have  sprung,  on  naturalistic  prin- 
ciples, from  an  age  so  bare  of  priests  and  priestly  power. 


Introductory.  37 

It  demands  exclusiveness  just  when  men  are  pining  for 
greater  breadth  and  freedom.  It  saddles  with  a  burden- 
some ritual  a  people  who  have  learned  by  recent  ex- 
perience how  high  the  spirit  is  above  the  form.  It 
makes  centralization  imperative,  when  God's  providence 
is  teaching  the  worth  of  a  larger  measure  of  diffusion 
and  independence.  It  turns  all  eyes  and  calls  all 
worshipers  to  the  degenerate  temple  at  the  very  crisis 
when  began  historically  that  grand  popular  movement 
in  the  direction  of  the  synagogues  which  ended  in  sup- 
planting altogether  the  dominant  influence  of  the  temple 
and  its  Sadducaean  hierarchy. 

This,  moreover,  suggests  the  consideration  that  the 
post-exilian  history  of  the  Jewish  people  down  to  this 
very  day  is  just  as  much  a  matter  that  needs  explanation 
on  the  basis  of  the  present  theory.  For  such  a  mighty 
growth  as  this  you  must  have  depth  of  soil,  and  you 
must  have  time.  The  decade  of  centuries  antedating 
the  exile  are  none  too  numerous.  The  clear-cut  schism 
of  the  Samaritans ;  the  singular  attitude  o^^  the  Israel- 
itish  nation  over  against  the  great  world-powers — the 
Persian,  the  Greek,  the  Roman  ;  the  tremendous  earnest- 
ness displaying  itself  in  sects  like  those  of  the  Pharisees 
and  Sadducees  ;  the  heroic,  and  in  the  annals  of  religious 
wars  as  yet  unequaled,  struggle  of  the  Maccabees  ; 
they  have  no  sufficient  ground  in  the  shallow  sacerdotal- 
ism of  an  aspiring  priesthood  of  the  exile.  This  is  no 
mere  zeal  for  ecclesiastical  observances.  "  We  fight," 
said  Judas  Maccaboeus,  "  for  our  lives  and  for  our 
laws."^  And  elsewhere,  respecting  the  temple  services 
of  which  they  had  been  deprived,  in  a  sentiment  worthy 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  :  "  God  did  not  choose 
the  people  for  the  place's  sake,  but  the  place  for  the 
people's  sake."  2 

^  I  Mac.  iii.  21.  *  ?  Mac.  v.  19. 


M2311 


38         The  Pentateuch:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

And  the  marvel  of  the  Jewish  race  through  eighteen 
Christian  centuries,  without  political  power,  without  a 
home,  without  a  standing  among  the  nations  of  the 
earth,  forever  ground  between  the  upper  and  nether 
millstone  of  civil  disabilities  and  moral  obloquy,  clearly- 
resting  under  what  one  has  called  the  "  sacred  anger  " 
of  their  God,  and  yet  ominously  preserved,  keeping  un- 
changed every  national  peculiarity,  succumbing  to 
nothing,  as  little  to  the  detestable  ostracism  and  Jew- 
baiting  of  our  day  as  to  the  barbarous  cruelties  of  the 
Middle  Ages  :  it  can  be  accounted  for  by  no  theological 
riffraff,  no  easy-going  system  of  history  and  laws,  which 
you  may  turn  end  for  end  without  essential  injury.  No 
agnostic  misconception  indeed  can  veil  the  fact  that  in 
this  people  we  have  the  archetype  of  a  religious  prin- 
ciple, rather  a  redemptive  plan  in  its  unfolding,  reaching 
backward  to  the  beginning,  and  in  its  very  indestructi- 
bility a  striking  prophecy  of  the  consummation. ^  We 
have  heard  of  the  demand  which  the  sceptical  Frederick 
II.  of  Prussia  once  made  upon  his  chaplain:  an  un- 
answerable proof  of  the  divinity  of  the  Scriptures,  plain 
and  short,  if  possible,  a  single  word.  And  you  know 
how  the  demand  was  met,  and  met  as  was  required,  by 
a  single  word,  and  that  word,  just  as  full  of  mysterious 
meaning  to-day  as  ever  before,  was  —  Israel.^ 

But  a  crowning  inconsistency  which  I  find  in  the 
methods  and  conclusions  of  our  critics  is  that,  while 
busy  with  codes  and  their  proper  distribution  among 
the  centuries,  they  have  strangely  overlooked  the  law- 
giver himself,  have  completely  failed  to  account  for  the 
conception  of  such  a  character  as  that  of  Moses  and  the 
unique  portrayal  of  it  in  the  Pentateuch,  Dazzled,  as  it 
should  seem,  by  the  glare  of  their  own  torches,  they 

>  Cf.  Rom.  xi.  12.  2  gf.  Naville,  The  Christ  (1880),  p.  204. 


Introductory.  39 

have  never  fully  gauged  the  magnitude  of  the  problem 
which  they  undertake  to  solve.  When  the  destructive 
critics  of  the  New  Testament  have  finished  their  work, 
if  such  a  supposition  be  allowable,  and  torn  piecemeal 
the  four  histories  of  our  Lord,  parceling  out  the  frag- 
ments to  different  hands  and  different  times,  there  will 
still  remain  untouched,  and  forever  above  the  reach  of 
critical  experts,  the  peerless  Christ  to  be  accounted  for ; 
and  here,  in  like  manner,  is  the  Moses  of  the  Pentateuch 
coming  with  radiant  face  from  God's  presence.  A 
greater  miracle  than  Jesus,  he  is  called,  if  he  be  a 
product  of  the  early  age.  But  is  it  easier,  then,  to 
believe  that  a  priestly  coterie  of  Josiah's  time  and  Ezra's 
time  made  him  than  that  God  made  him?^  Is  the 
miracle  one  whit  lessened,  if  he  be  regarded  as  a  cheap 
composite,  the  patched  up  manikin  of  half  a  score  of 
different  hands,  plying  their  crafty  arts  through  half  a 
score  of  centuries  .■•  As  a  gift  of  God's  good  providence 
sent  for  a  special  purpose,  the  character  is  intelligible. 
It  has  been  ever  so  in  human  history,  that  great  sons  of 
their  times  have,  sooner  or  later,  responded  to  the  clarion 
call  of  great  opportunities.  But,  as  the  puppet  of  a 
show,  the  result  of  some  hocus-pocus  of  Jehovist  and 

1  Cf.  Payne-Smith,  The  Credibility  of  the  Pentateuch,  p.  37  f.  "  Alike  the  patriot- 
ism, the  self-denial,  and  the  purposes  sought  by  Moses  are  intelligible,  if  he  were  a  real 
man,  but  the  history  is  most  improbable  if  he  were  a  mythical  hero.  He  might  have  made 
his  own  son  his  successor  in  the  chieftainship :  as  a  matter  of  fact  he  passes  him  by,  and 
chooses  instead  Joshua,  a  young  noble  of  the  race  of  Ephraim.  On  the  conquest  of 
Canaan,  Joshua  receives  large  landed  estates,  but  for  the  sons  of  Moses  there  was  nothing 
more  than  their  share  of  the  Levitical  offerings.  Even  the  headship  of  the  tribe  of  Levi 
belonged  to  Aaron,  the  elder  brother  of  Moses ;  and  upon  him  and  his  descendants  the  high- 
priesthood  was  conferred.  They  did  consequently  hold  a  grand  position;  but  as  for  Moses 
himself,  in  i  Chron.  vi.,  after  he  has  been  barely  mentioned,  his  race  drops  entirely  out  of 
the  genealogy,  while  the  family  of  Aaron  is  carefully  described.  All  this  is  full  of  meaning 
typically  and  finds  lis  explanation  in  New  Testament  truths;  but  to  these  I  nuist  not 
refer,  as  they  lie  outside  the  argument.  I  only  point  out  the  facts  as  given  in  the  nar- 
rative, that  while  Moses  conferred  the  spiritual  power  on  Aaron,  and  provided  for  its 
permanent  continuance,  betook  diligent  care  that  his  own  kingly  office  (Deut.  xx.xiii.  5) 
should  neither  be  permanent  nor  hereditary.     Yet  hereditary  rights  were  ^ot  unknowt)." 


40         TJie  PentatejicJt :  Its  Origin  arid  Structure. 

Elohist,  Deuteronomist  and  Redactor,  a  mere  toy. 
picture,  made  of  blocks,  squared  and  painted  by  different 
hands  —  that  strains  our  credulity  too  far.  It  is  in- 
credible. 

Would  any  one  venture  the  hypothesis  that  Raphael's 
Madonna  di  San  Sisto  might  have  been  the  mutual 
product  of  a  number  of  different  artists,  who  employed 
themselves  in  different  periods  upon  it,  while  Raphael 
himself  was  but  a  sort  of  final  redactor  of  the  work? 
Is  it  a  possible  supposition  that  any  half-dozen  hewers 
of  marble,  though  each  one  were  gifted  with  a  master's 
skill,  could  ever  have  realized  the  conception  which 
Michael  Angelo  attained  in  his  statue  of  Moses .-'  It  is 
not  to  be  thought  of.  The  marble  itself  must  speak  to 
brand  it  as  false.  But  here  is  a  unity  and  a  complete- 
ness higher  than  that  of  art,  —  the  unity  of  nature,  the 
unity  of  a  noble  human  life.  Perfect  it  is  not,  for  then 
it  would  be  other  than  human  ;  but  —  from  that  first 
sweet  picture  of  the  little  child  nestling  in  its  cradle  of 
papyrus  leaves,  among  the  reeds  of  the  Nile,  to  that 
last,  solemn  journey  to  the  top  of  Nebo,  to  get  one 
glimpse  of  the  dear  land  which,  because  of  sin,  he 
might  not  set  his  foot  upon  —  unique,  and  to  the  final 
stroke  beyond  the  possible  reach  of  invention. 

Greatest  of  all  names  in  these  ancient  records,  great 
as  deliverer  and  leader  of  Israel ;  great  as  lawgiver  and 
religious  reformer  in  a  savage  age,  what  form  more 
worthy  than  his  to  stand  beside  the  shaggy  Elijah  as  fit 
exponent  of  Israelitish  history  amidst  the  transfiguring 
glory  of  him  who  was  its  chiefest  end  and  ripest 
bloom  } 

Conjured  into  the  history  he  was  not,  and  could  not 
have  been  ;  and  just  as  little  can  he  be  conjured  out  of  it. 
But  in  it,  and  of  it,  then  the  miracle,  if  miracle  it  be,  ig 


Introductory.  41 

God's,  and  cannot  be  overthrown.  And  with  the  over- 
shadowing personality  of  a  Moses,  indisputably  fixed  in 
the  age  of  Moses,  you  have  not  only  a  sure  and  stead- 
fast anchor  for  the  documents  that  bear  his  name,  but 
also  a  sufficient  pledge  of  their  genuineness  and  order. 
The  material  universe  during  these  cycles  of  time 
since  the  exodus  has  been  slowly  undergoing  change. 
The  "everlasting  hills,"  of  which  the  Psalmist  speaks, 
have  taken  on  other  shapes,  gradually  yielding  to  the 
touch  of  time.  But  this  sublime  figure  of  the  ancient 
books,  and  those  first  great  truths  he  uttered  so  long 
ago,  remain  unchanged.  Our  critics  may  succeed  in 
obscuring,  for  some  and  for  a  time,  the  image  and  its 
historic  setting ;  but  to  efface  or  greatly  alter  it  were 
impossible.  Like  the  palimpsest  of  the  gospel,  it  may 
be  written  over  and  over  with  other  thoughts.  But 
there  will  also  be  happy  discoverers  in  the  good  time  to 
come.  The  human  will  fade  out  at  last,  and  the  divine 
shine  through. 


II. 

HISTORICAL  SKETCH  OF  THE  CRITICISM. 


Previoqs  to  the  Christian  era  there  are  no  traces  of  a 
second  opinion  concerning  the  authorship  of  the  Penta- 
teuch :  It  was  universally  ascribed  to  Moses.  So  tena- 
ciously, indeed,  was  the  opinion  held  and  so  undisturbed 
was  it  by  any  critical  questionings  that  the  two  foremost 
representatives  of  Jewish  public  sentiment  and  Jewish 
history  in  the  time  of  our  Lord,  Philo  ^  and  Josephus,^ 
did  not  scruple  even  to  state  that  the  last  eight  verses 
of  Deuteronomy  which  describe  the  lawgiver's  death 
were,  no  less  than  the  rest,  from  the  lawgiver's  hand.. 
This  opinion,  as  it  concerned  Mosaic  authorship  in 
general,  our  Lord  and  his  disciples  seem  to  have  shared. 
In  sixteen  different  passages,  including  parallels,  Moses 
is  referred  to  by  the  Master.  In  two  of  them  (John 
iii.  14;  vi.  32)  he  is  connected  with  important  events  in 
the  history  of  the  exodus.  In  two  others  he  is  referred 
to  as  lawgiver  (Matt,  xxiii.  2 ;  John  vii.  19),  and  in  the 
second  in  a  manner  too  explicit  to  escape  attention  : 
"  Did  not  Moses  give  you  the  law  ?  "  In  a  number  of 
others  (Matt.  viii.  4;  cf.  Mark  i.  44  ;  Luke  v.  14;  Matt. 
xix.  8.     Cf.  Mark  x.  3-9  ;  Mark  vii.  10  ;  Luke  xx.  37  ;  John 

^  a.  Yiarima.nn,  Histon'sch-kritsche  Forsckitngen,  pp.  1-71;  Diestel,  Geschichte  d. 
Alt.  Test,  etc.,  p.  555  ff.;  Merx,  "  Nachwort  "  (pp.  Ixxviii.-cxxii.)  of  Tuch's  Co»t- 
vtentar  iiber  die  Genesis;  Bleek's  EiiUeitung  in  d.  Alt.  Tcsi..,  ed.  by  Wellhausen,  pp 
.1-178;  Siegfried,  Spinoza  ah  Kritiker,  etc.;  Strack,  in  Herzog's  Eiicyk.,  art. 
"Pentateuch"  ;  Briggs,  Biblical  Study,  pp.  164-213;  Curtiss,  "Sketches  of  Penta- 
teuch Criticism"  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  January  1884,  pp.  1-23,  660-697. 

2  De  Vita  Mosis,  iii.  39.  s  Antiq.,  iv.  8,  48. 


Historical  Sketch  of  the  Criticism.  43 

vii.  22,  23),  most  of  them  in  circumstances  apparently 
forbidding  the  theory  of  simple  accommodation  to 
a  popular  misconception,  he  speaks,  respectively, 
of  Moses  as  having  given  a  law  concerning  leprosy 
(cf.  Lev.  xiii.  xiv),  concerning  obedience  to  parents  (cf. 
Ex.  XX.  12),  concerning  divorce  (cf.  Deut.  xxiv.  1-4),^ 
thus  directly  imputing  to  him  legislation  belonging  to 
each  of  the  three  great  parts  into  which  many  modern 
critics  divide  the  Pentateuch  and  refer  to  widely  sep- 
arated periods  of  time. 

In  three  other  passages  (Mark  xii.  26 ;  Luke  xvi.  29, 
31;  xxiv.  44)  in  speaking  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  a 
whole  or  in  part,  he  employs  the  epithets,  the  "Book  of 
Moses,"  "  Moses  and  the  Prophets,"  "  the  Law  of  Moses, 
the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms,"  in  a  way,  considering  the 
usages  of  his  times,  to  indicate  that  he  accepted,  or  at 
least  did  not  reject,  the  popular  sentiment  regarding 
the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch.  And  finally,  in  John  v. 
45-47,  our  Lord  appeals  to  the  "writings  of  Moses"  as 
witnessing  to  him,  telling  his  Jewish  hearers  that,  if 
they  really  believed  Moses,  they  would  also  believe  him 
because  Moses  wrote  of  him. 

It  is  well  known,  further,  that  different  New  Testa- 
ment writers  in  numerous  instances  —  not  less  than  a 
score  and  a  half  altogether  —  follow  the  example  thus 
set  them  by  the  Master  and  that  there  is  not  a  single 
case  of  deviation  from  the  rule  of  ascribing  the  Penta- 
teuch to  Moses,  or,  in  other  words,  of  connecting  him 
with  larger  or  smaller  portions  of  it  in  a  way  to  imply 
his  literary  responsibility  for  its  contents  as  a  whole. 

These  undisputed  facts,  now,  are  by  no  means  cited 
at  this  point,  as  forestalling  critical  discussion  and 
proving   beyond    question  for  everybody    that    Moses 

*  In  Mark  x.  s  he  says  Moses  wrote  this  law. 


44  The  PentateticJi :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

actually  wrote  the  Pentateuch  or  any  considerable 
portions  of  it ;  but  simply  as  historical  facts  having  a 
very  important  bearing — and  for  some  persons,  at  least, 
a  decisive  one  i  —  on  the  point  at  issue,  and  that  cannot 
be  left  out  of  account  whatever  conclusions  may  be 
finally  reached.  There  is  no  slight  significance  in  the 
very  strength  of  the  later  attestation  in  its  relation  to 
the  earlier. 

Of  the  testimony  of  the  post-Mosaic  biblical  books  it 
has  been  said  that  it  is  susceptible  of  a  twofold  inter- 
pretation and  does  not  force  us  to  the  inference  that 
they  represent  the  whole  Pentateuch  to  be  Mosaic.  Of 
the  post-exilian  writings,  again,  it  is  affirmed  that 
their  great  distance  from  the  period  when  the  Penta- 
teuch originated  unfits  them  to  be  altogether  competent 
and  convincing  witnesses  to  its  authorship. 

Due  weight  must  be  allowed  to  such  objections.  The 
latter  one,  in  truth,  is  not  enough  considered  by  critics 
of  the  present  day  who  often  speak  with  the  assurance 
of  contemporaries  and  eyewitnesses  of  events  that  took 
place  in  the  exodus  period  or  before  the  flood.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  must  not  be  overlooked  that  if  we 
have  to  do  with  a  "  tradition,"  so  called,  it  is  one  that 
is  distinctly  traceable  in  authentic  sources  of  informa- 
tion ;  is  uniform,  uninterrupted,  and  universal,  and  when 
submitted  to  the  test  of  national  writers  of  acknowl- 
edged trustworthiness,  of  the  purest  motives,  and  the 
highest  moral  purpose,  so  far  from  breaking  down  or 
weakening  in  the  least,  it  finds  in  them  its  clearest 
enunciation  and  its  most  emphatic  support. 

The  circumstance  is  worthy  of  attention  that  the 
first,  as  far  as  we  have  information,  to  challenge  the 

1  Cf.  an  Art.  by  Professor  Boardman  on   "  Inspiration  "  in  the  Bibliotheca    Sacra 
for  July,  1884,  p.  528  r. 


Historical  Sketch  of  the  Criticism.  45 

Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentaieuch  were  the  heretical 
leaders  and  skeptics  of  the  sub-apostolic  age.  Not  that 
this,  in  itself  considered,  should  militate  against  the 
position  from  a  critical  point  of  view.  It  serves  simply 
to  show  that,  in  this  case,  there  is  a  motive  sufficient 
to  account  for  the  interruption  now,  for  the  first  time, 
made  in  the  current  of  history.  The  objections 
offered  are  wholly  of  a  dogmatic  nature ;  they  are  not 
so  much  directed  against  Moses  as  Mosaism. 

The  Gnostic,  for  example,  sees  no  way  of  escapmg 
from  the  teachings  of  the  Pentateuch  as  he  finds  it,  and 
hence  he  separates  it  into  parts  having,  as  he  claims, 
differences  in  origin  and  being  vested  with  an  unequal 
authority.  The  Nazarene,  to  whom  animal  food  is 
obnoxious,  in  like  manner  refuses  to  accept  as  genuine 
any  book  that  makes  his  forefathers  consumers  and 
offerers  of  the  forbidden  flesh.^  The  apostate  Julian, 
on  the  other  hand,  simply  vents  his  spleen  on  Moses, 
as  he  does  on  Jesus,  and  shows  to  what  extent  a  rooted 
aversion  has  perverted  his  judgment  when  he  charges 
the  self-renunciating  leader  of  the  exodus  with  dema- 
gogism.2 

In  fact,  a  history  of  the  criticism  might  almost  pass 
by  these  earliest  critics  as  standing  quite  outside  the 
range  of  genuine  seekers  after  truth,  did  not  the 
same  danger  which  they  so  conspicuously  illustrate 
threaten  us  at  every  step  in  our  inquiries.  Preposses- 
sions are  inevitable.  We  can  no  more  be  rid  of  them 
than  of  our  skins.  They  are,  indeed,  an  essential  part 
of   our  mental  and  moral   furnishing.^      But  stubborn 

'^  Epiphanii  Panariurn.     Hacr.  xviii.  i;  xxxiii.  3,4. 

*Cf.  Juliani  Impcratoris  libroricin  contra  Christianos  quae  supersunt,  ed.  by 
Neumann,  Leipz.,  1880.     Prolegomena,  pp.  20,  21. 

''On  this  account,  I  cannot  feel  full  sympathy  with  the  views  expressed  in  an  able 
address    delivered    before    the    second    annual    Baptist  Autumnal    Conference    by   my 


46         The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

prejudice  is  quite  another  thing,  and  nothing  is  more 
fatal  to  the  successful  pursuit  of  facts.  To  claim  to  be 
free  from  it  is  the  cheapest  of  professions.  To  be 
really  free  from  it,  one  of  the  rarest  of  virtues. 

The  rise  of  anything  that  might  properly  be  called 
criticism  in  the  department  of  the  Pentateuch  seems  to 
have  been  with  Aben  Ezra.  His  active  life  falls  within 
the  first  half  of  the  twelfth  century.  He  was  an  ardent 
scholar,  but  a  neo-Platonist  in  philosophy.  His  attitude 
toward  the  Scriptures  is  much  in  dispute.  Pronounced 
it  was  not ;  nor  can  it  be  interpreted  as  antagonistic 
to  the  claim  that  "the  law  was  given  by  Moses."  When 
a  compatriot,  a  certain  "  Isaac,"  remarks  on  the  well- 
known  verse   in  Genesis  where,  by  implication,  kings 

esteemed  friend,  Dr.  D.  G.  Lyon,  of  Cambridge,  on  "  The  Results  of  Modern  Biblical 
Criticism."  He  says:  "  On  the  other  hand,  biblical  criticism  does  not  love  the  Bible. 
In  common  with  all  science,  its  only  aim  and  its  only  love  is  truth.  The  Bible  is  to  it 
what  the  stars  are  to  astronomy,  or  the  flowers  to  botany  —  the  field  of  its  exploration, 
within  which  it  seeks  the  truth.  Biblical  criticism,  as  criticism,  is  the  same  whether 
practised  by  a  pietist  or  a  rationalist.  The  term  '  devout  criticism '  would  be  impossible  — 
fully  as  much  so  as  the  term  '  Christian  science.'  The  spirit  of  a  critic  may  be  Christian 
or  otherwise;  science  has  no  religion  and  is  hostile  to  none."  Cf.  Proceedings,  etc., 
Boston,  1883,  p.  60.  I  confess  to  liking  better  the  careful  statements  of  Principal  Rainy 
{,The  Bible  and  Criticism,  p.  136  f.;  cf.  p.  no  f.) :  "  Now,  I  think,  there  is  an  interest 
here  to  be  guarded,  if  we  can  guard  it  wisely.  Some  think  that  we  should  concede  to 
criticism  the  right  to  work  out  its  own  results,  taking  no  responsibility  about  them, 
showing  no  antagonism  to  any  of  them,  assured  that,  in  the  end  of  the  day,  all  established 
facts  will  be  found  harmonizing  with  all  well-warranted  faith.  That  is  not  a  view  in 
which  I  can  acquiesce.  I  think  criticism,  even  as  carried  on  by  believing  men,  needs  an 
influence  arising  from  the  point  of  view  of  those  who  represent  simply  the  interests  of  the 
common  faith.  I  think  it  is  the  better  for  having  to  reckon  with  that.  Critical  probabili- 
ties are  often  no  more  than  critical  plausibilities.  Besides,  criticism,  full  of  scientific 
enthusiasm  for  methods  formed  and  proved  in  the  field  of  general  literature,  is  in  danger 
of  not  always  rightly  estimating  how  the  divine  element  in  the  Scriptures  modifies  the 
problem  and  qualifies  the  results.  It  is  the  business  and  the  point  of  honor  of  criticism  to 
do  the  utmost  and  the  very  best  that  can  be  done  with  the  natural,  the  historical,  the 
common  laws  and  the  common  conditions;  and  in  this  case  criticism  is  none  the  worse 
for  a  certain  counter-pressure  to  compel  her  to  make  her  work  peculiarly  sure  when  her 
problems  are  peculiarly  delicate.  .  .  .  Every  day  of  my  life  I  fall  in  with  critical  opinions 
which  I  find  myself  dismissing  from  my  mind  as  opinions  which  I  am  not  going  to  adopt, 
partly,  no  doubt,  because  I  don't  think  it  likely  any  strong  evidence  will  be  found  in 
support  of  them;  but  partly  also  because  whatever  presumptions  could  be  pleaded  for 
them,  I  rate  highly  the  presumptions  arising  against  them,  from  their  apparent  incongruity 
with  what  appears  to  me  to  be  a  sound  and  reasonable  view  of  the  Bible." 


Historical  Sketch  of  the  Criticism.  47 

are  ascribed  to  Israel  (Gen.  xxxvi.  31)  that  it  must  have 
been  written  in  the  days  of  Jehosaphat,  this  scholar 
takes  him  to  task  for  the  assertion  and  vindicates  its 
origin  in  the  Mosaic  period  {Com.  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  5). 
His  reasoning  is  far  from  brilliant ;  but  what  conclu- 
sion he  would  have  us  draw  from  it  is  beyond 
dispute.  Hence  when  Aben  Ezra  elsewhere  (in  his 
comments  on  Deut.  i.  2)  indicates  a  number  of  passages 
in  the  Pentateuch  as,  in  his  view,  of  doubtful  origin  or 
doubtful  meaning,^  it  is  scarcely  fair  to  go  behind  the 
record  and  charge  him  with  holding  some  other  opinion 
concerning  them.  His  attitude  is  simply  one  of  inquiry 
and  is  equally  creditable  to  his  discrimination  and  good 
sense.  It  cannot  be  considered  as  really  prejudicing 
that  which  he  elsewhere  clearly  assumes  toward  the 
Pentateuch  as  a  whole.^ 

Following  Aben  Ezra  the  next  critic  in  order  of  time 
to  attract  particular  notice  was  Carlstadt,  a  contem- 
porary of  Luther  (1480-1541).^  Vain  as  he  was  im- 
petuous and  rash,  the  Reformation  never  came  nearer 
shipwreck  than  when  he  temporarily  guided  its  fortunes 
during  the  absence  of  his  chief  at  Wartburg.  The  very 
work  which  contains  his  criticisms  on  the  Pentateuch 
contains  also  a  subtle  attack  on  Luther,  whom  he 
regarded  as  a  rival* 

Carlstadt  not  only  denied  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 

1  "  If  thou  shall  understand,"  he  says,  "  the  secret  of  the  twelve  [that  is,  concluding 
verses  of  the  Pentateuch],  also,  '  Moses  wrote  this  book'  [Deut.  xxxi.  9]  and  '  theCanaan- 
ite  was  then  in  the  land  '  [Gen.  xii.  6] ,  '  in  the  mountain  of  the  Lord  lie  appeareth  '  [Gen. 
xxii.  14],  also, '  behold  his  bed  is  abed  of  iron'  [Deut.  iii.  11],  thou  shalt  recognize  the 
truth."  The  rabbinical  commentary  from  which  I  verify  this  passage  was  published  in 
Wilna,  1876. 

2  Similarly  Hartmann:  "  Aber  er  wollte  dutch  solche  Andeutungen  den  Pentateuch 
keineswegs  verdachtig  machen  oder  das  giittliche  Ansehen  des  erlauchteii  Gesetzgebers  im 
Geringsten  schmalern."  —  Forschic7i^cn,  etc.,  p.  i. 

'  De  Canonicis  Scripturis,  1520. 

*  Cf.  Mayer,  Dissertatio  de  Karolstadio,  Greifswald,  1703.  Jagcr,  Andreas  Doden- 
stetn  von  Karlstadt,  Stuttgart,  1856. 


4^  The  PcjitatencJi :  Its  Origin  and  Strnciure. 

Pentateuch,  but  declared  the  man  demented  who  could 
attribute  it  to  Moses.^  His  reasons,  however,  are  as 
uncertain  as  his  temper.  Moses  could  not  have  written 
the  account  of  his  own  death.  But  that  account  appears 
in  the  same  style  as  the  remainder  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Hence,  Moses  could  not  have  written  the  Pentateuch. 
Those  twelve  concluding  verses  of  Deuteronomy, 
however,  make  an  exceedingly  slender  thread  to  bind 
together  such  massive  argumentation.  Were  we  to 
admit  the  ability  of  Carlstadt,  or  any  other  man,  to 
decide  the  question  of  style  with  such  limited  means  of 
comparison,  and  were  we  even  to  admit  that  the  style  of 
the  Pentateuch  is  not  Mosaic,  we  might  be  still  a  good 
way  off  from  admitting  that  Moses  is  not  responsible  for 
the  literary  contents  of  the  Pentateuch  whatever  may 
have  been  his  sources,  or  whoever  his  amanuensis. 

A  little  later,  Andreas  Masius  (d.  1573),  a  venturesome 
Roman  Catholic  jurist,  of  Belgium,  discussed  the  same 
topic.  In  the  preface  and  other  portions  of  a  scholarly 
commentary  on  Joshua,^  he  advanced  the  opinion  that 
Ezra,  either  alone  or  in  conjunction  with  others,  in  edit- 
ing the  Pentateuch,  as  he  assumes  that  he  did,  may  have 
interj^olated  it,  also,  to  the  extent  of  single  explanatory 
words,  here  and  there,  or  possibly  sentences.  Still,  he 
did  so,  if  at  all,  according  to  Masius,  under  the  special 
guidance  of  the  Spirit  who  inspired  Moses,  the  original 
writer.  Even  so  mild  and  conservative  a  statement  as 
this  was  held  by  his  ecclesiastical  superiors  to  be  fraught 
with  peril,  and  Masius's  book  was  interdicted.  That  is, 
it  was  buried  alive  to  come  up  again  in  a  crop  of  similar, 
or  more  intemperate,  works,  like  that  of  Carlstadt,  which 
no  interdict  could  reach. 

For  one  such  the  world  did  not  have  long  to  wait :  it 

'  De  Canojiicis,  etc.,  p.  364  IT.  2  Josvae  Imperatoris  Historia,  1574- 


historical  Sketch  of  the  Criticism.  49 

was  Hobbes's  Leviathan}  In  spirit  and  methods  Hobbes 
was  the  forerunner  of  the  modern  scientific  sceptic.  He 
vigorously  applied  to  history  and  revelation  the  princi- 
ples that  govern  in  the  study  of  physics.  Yet,  in  his 
criticisms  of  the  Pentateuch,  Hobbes  was  no  inconoclast. 
Compared  with  Wellhausen's  Geschichte,  there  is  little 
in  his  book  of  portentous  title  that  would  now  attract 
unusual  attention,  although  at  that  time  it  cost  him  his 
position  at  court.  He  denied  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch  as  a  whole,  mainly  on  the  ground  of 
scattered  expressions  supposed  to  be  inconsistent  with 
such  a  theory.  What  is  directly  ascribed  to  Moses  in 
the  Pentateuch  itself,  as,  for  example,  the  fourteen  chap- 
ters of  legislation  in  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  even  so 
much  of  a  theological  outlaw  as  Hobbes  had  not  the 
hardihood  to  pronounce  post-Mosaic. 

A  contemporaneous  ally  of  the  English  critic  was  the 
Frenchman,  Isaac  Peyrere  (1594-1676).  His  work  on 
the  Prseadamites  ^  provided  him  the  opportunity  for  dis- 
coursing on  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch.  He 
denied,  for  much  the  same  reasons  as  Hobbes,  that  in 
its  present  form  it  is  a  work  of  Moses  ;  but,  like  Hobbes, 
he  conceded  the  participation  of  Moses  in  the  composi- 
tion. The  leader  of  the  exodus  had  kept  a  journal  of 
principal  events,  including  the  giving  of  the  law,  and 
had  prefaced  the  same  with  a  history  of  the  world  from 
the  beginning,  not  excepting  the  Praeadamites.  If  these 
precious  autographs  had  not  been  lost  —  Peyrere  does 
not  tell  us  how  they  were  so  soon  lost,  notwithstanding 
the  evident  care  that  was  taken  of  them  —  we  should 
not  have  had  the  anachronisms,  confused  arrangement, 
and  obscurities  of  the  present  narrative ;  nor  should  wq 

'  Published  originally  in  1651,  new  editions  have  appeared  in  England  within  the   last 
three  years.     His  works  in  fnll  were  published  by  Molesworth,  London,  1839-45. 
*  Systeina  Theologiciim  ex  rneadainilarum  llypothesi,  1655. 


50  TJie  PentateucJi :  Its  Origin  and  Striictitre. 

have  been  obliged  to  mourn  the  absence  of  all  docu- 
mentary support  for  the  doctrine  of  the  Praeadamites, 
excepting  only  a  single  verse  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  (v.  14). 

The  fact  that  Peyrere  was  persuaded  afterward  to 
retract  his  pet  theories,  and  also  to  abjure  the  Protest- 
ant faith,  leaves  the  force  of  his  reasoning,  be  it  weak 
or  strong,  precisely  where  the  retraction  of  Galileo  left 
the  movements  of  the  heavenly  bodies. 

An  abler  critic  than  either  Hobbes  or  Peyrere  and  a 
bolder  one  than  even  Carlstadt  was  Benedict  Spinoza.^ 
He  was  a  Jew  of  extraordinary  learning  for  his  times 
and  a  man  whom  no  pains  could  turn  aside  from  his 
convictions.  His  great  fault  as  a  critic  lay  in  his 
philosophy.  He  rejected,  at  the  start,  a  supernatural 
revelation,  miracle  and  prophecy,  and  was  the  father 
of  all  such  as  handle  the  weapons  of  rationalistic 
Science  in  dealing  with  the  Scriptures. 

Following  up  the  clues  furnished  by  Aben  Ezra, 
whom  he,  however,  characterized  as  somewhat  of  a 
iveathercock  and  trimmer,  he  went  on  to  indicate  still 
other  peculiarities  of  the  Pentateuch  which,  in  his 
judgment,  disprove  the  authorship)  of  Moses.  There 
Vvas  the  fact  that  Moses  is  spoken  of,  so  often,  in  the 
third  person  ;  that  he  is  pronounced  the  meekest  of  men 
(Num.  xii.  3);  that  certain  places  are  called  by  names 
which  they  first  received  at  a  later  period ;  that  the 
hand  that  concludes  the  work  describes  the  death  of 
the  lawgiver  and  lauds  him  as  the   first   of  prophets. 

These  considerations,  Spinoza  averred,  furnish  incon- 
testable evidence  that  the  Five  Books  are  not  from 
Moses.  That  he  wrote  parts  of  them  is  evident  enough. 
He  wrote  a  Book  of  the  Wars  of  God  (Ex.  xvii.  14 ;  cf. 

^  Tractatus  Theologico-Politicus ,  1670. 


Historical  Sketch  of  the  Criticism.  5 1 

Num.  xxi.  14),  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  xx.  22- 
xxiv.),  some  Book  of  the  Law  (Deut.  xxxi.  9),  which 
furnished  the  basis  for  the  present  Book  of  Deuteron- 
omy.i  But  the  Pentateuch  is  the  work  of  some  late 
compiler,  not  unlikely  Ezra.  His  unity  of  purpose  is 
everywhere  apparent  ;  but  he  carries  it  out  imperfectly 
and  leaves  not  a  little  in  the  way  of  editing  to  be 
desired. 

Thus  far,  critical  discussions  of  the  Pentateuch  have 
been  mostly  of  the  nature  of  assaults  on  its  genuine- 
ness and  the  chief  response  they  have  evoked  has  been 
that  of  authority  and  repression.  With  Richard  Simon, 
whose  book  on  the  critical  history  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment appeared  eight  years  after  that  of  Spinoza,  began 
the  answer  of  argument.^  The  laws  of  the  Pentateuch, 
he  contended,  are  the  veritable  autograph  of  Moses, 
while  the  history  of  his  times  was  written,  under  his 
direction,  by  public  annalists  after  Egyptian  models. 
The  somewhat  heterogeneous  products  of  these  diverse 
pens,  together  with  the  Mosaic  legislation,  form  the 
Pentateuch  as  we  now  have  it.  The  theory  was  ingen- 
ious and,  for  a   Roman    Catholic   writer   of  that    day, 

*  Neither  Spinoza,  nor  Hobbes  mentioned  above,  gives  Moses  credit  for  anything  like 
all  that  is  ascribed  to  him  in  the  Scriptures.  He  is  said  (Ex.  xxiv.  4)  to  have  written 
that  part  of  Exodus  styled  (vs.  7)  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  xx.-xxiii.).  He  wrote 
alsotheform  in  which  that  covenant  was  renewed  (Ex.  xxxiv.  10-26;  cf.  vs.  27).  Nearly 
every  law  of  the  three  middle  books  is  directly  traced  to  him  as  its  authoritative  mediator. 
The  same  is  true  of  the  code  of  Deuteronomy  (xii.-xxvi.),  if,  indeed,  it  be  not  asserted  in 
that  book  (xxxi.  9)  tliat  all  the  Pentateuch  is  from  his  hand.  It  would  be  using  the  term 
"  this  law  "  in  scarcely  a  broader  sense  than  it  is  employed  in  the  earlier  part  of  Deuteron- 
omy itself  (i.  5).  According  to  Exodus  xvii.  14,  again,  Moses  was  commanded  to  write  a 
document  concerning  the  devotement  of  Amaiek  to  destruction  and  it  was  to  be  written 
"  in  the  book,"  that  is,  be  added  to  records  which  had  already  been  made  (cf.  Josh.  xxx. 
8).  He  is  said,  further,  to  have  put  down  in  writing  <a  list  of  the  more  than  forty  stations 
where  the  Israelites  encamped  in  the  wilderness,  and,  clearly,  not  as  simple  scribe,  but,  as 
the  context  shows,  as  the  divinely  appointed  leader  of  the  host  that  went  forth  out  of 
Egypt  "  under  the  hand  of  Moses  and  Aaron"  (Num.  xxxiii.  2;  cf.  vs.  i).  The  so- 
called  "  Song  of  Moses  "  (Deut.  xxxii.)  is  declared  not  only  to  have  been  written  down 
by  him,  but  to  h.avc  been  taught  to   the  children  of  Israel  (cf.  xxxi.  22). 

'  Histoire  Critique  dii  I  'iciix  Testament,  1678. 


5  2  The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Stnicture. 

ingenuous  ;  but  it  was  cumbersome  and  very  imperfectly 
applied. 

Ostensibly  to  correct  the  mistakes  of  a  predecessor, 
but  really  to  complicate  still  more  what  De  Wette  called 
the  "dangerous  game"  of  the  critics,  appeared  seven 
years  later  the  anonymously  published  work  of  Le 
Clerc.i  Undercover  of  a  remonstrance  with  Simon  for 
his  intemperate  assault  on  Protestant  writers,  this 
scholar  airs  a  theory  that  in  temerity  would  do  credit  to 
our  own  day.  A  variety  of  internal  signs,  he  avers, 
disprove  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  (Gen. 
xii.  6;  xiv.  14;  xxxv.  21  ;  xxxvi.  31;  xxxvii.  14;  xl.  15). 
It  must  have  come  into  its  present  form  at  a  much  later 
period.  Who  so  likely  to  have  put  his  shaping  hand 
upon  it  as  that  priest  who  in  the  Book  of  Kings 
(2  Kings  xvii.  27  f.)  is  said  to  have  been  sent  from 
Babylon  to  teach  the  Samaritan  colonists  the  Jewish 
faith .? 

Simon,  however,  in  another  work,^  took  up  the 
gauntlet  thus  thrown  down  ;  and,  convinced  by  him,  or 
with  more  probability  by  the  reasoning  of  the  distin- 
guished Hebraist,  Witsius,^  Le  Clerc  soon  afterward 
retracted  his  hypothesis,*  accounting  for  all  internal  diffi- 
culties in  the  Mosaic  records  as  simple  interpolations 
and  vindicating  for  Moses  the  proper  authorship  of  the 
work.  Undeterred  by  so  inglorious  a  surrender  on  the 
part  of  a  contemporary,  still  another  Dutch  scholar, 
the  Mennonite  Anton  van  Dale,  hazarded,  in  connection 
with  a  work  on  idolatry,^  the  conjecture  that  the  Penta^ 
teuch  is  a  compilation  at  the  hand  of  the  exilian  Ezra, 

1  Sentimens  de  quelques  theologiens  de  Hollaude  sur  V Histoire  Critique,  1685. 

'^  Rcponse  au  livre  itititulc  Sentintens,  etc.,  1696. 

^  Miscellajieorum  Sacroruiii  Libri,  1692,  1700. 

<  Commentary  on  Genesis  {Prolegom.  dissertat.tertia),  1693. 

^  De  Origine  et  Progressu  Idololatriae,  1696. 


t 


Histoncal  Sketch  of  the  Criticism.  5  3 


the  pandects  of  Moses  and  writings  of  the  earlier 
historians  and    prophets   furnishing   him    the    material. 

Two  things  will  have  been  specially  observed  in  the 
review  of  opinions  up  to  this  point,  and  in  what  may  be 
called  its  first  period  :  first,  and  foremost,  the  extreme 
superficiality  of  the  reasons  given  for  denying  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  although  they 
have  been  thought  worthy  of  an  almost  exact  repro- 
duction in  our  own  day.  It  surely  needs  no  great 
depth  of  insight  to  see  the  precariousness  of  the  con- 
clusion that  because  Moses  could  not  well  have  written 
the  last  twelve  verses  of  Deuteronomy,  therefore  he 
could  not  have  been  the  author  of  the  rest  of  the  book  ; 
that  because,  in  Gen.  xiv.  14,  Laish  is  called  by  the 
name  of  Dan,  common  in  later  times,  therefore  the 
section  where  it  is  found,  in  fact,  the  whole  of  Genesis, 
originated  in  the  later  times  when  that  name  was 
common.  It  betrays  a  remarkable  confusion  of  ideas, 
in  short,  to  accept  as  signs  of  authorship  the  very 
things  that  spring  to  the  eye  even  of  a  cursory  reader 
as  evidence,  if  any  exists,  of  editorship.  It  is  not  the 
freckle,  but  the  face,  that  determines  the  complexion. 

And,  second,  it  appears  that  none  of  these  adverse 
critics  are  disposed  to  deny  the  literary  activity  of 
Moses,  or  even  his  predominant  influence  in  the  com- 
position of  the  Pentateuch.  If  we  have  not  his  auto- 
graph throughout,  or  even  at  all,  it  is  conceded  that 
the  apographs  are  largely  shaped  by  that  autograph. 
Spinoza,  who  would  have  flinched,  it  is  likely,  from 
no  conclusions  to  which  his  principles  and  reasoning 
seemed  to  lead  him,  finds  no  occasion  as  yet  for  dis- 
pensing with  the  chief  figure  of  Hebrew  history ;  as  he 
finds  no  necessity  for  theories  of  wholesale  invention 
and  multitudinous  textual  corruptions.     He  does,  it  is 


54         The  Pentateuch:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

true,  represent  Ezra  as  a  compiler ;  but  that  is  still  at 
a  considerable  remove  from  representing  him  as  a  con- 
spirator. 

As  it  concerns  the  general  nature  and  results  of  Pen- 
tateuch criticism  in  this  its  opening  period,  its  isolated 
and  sporadic  character  is  obvious.  Schools  of  criticism 
there  are  none.  No  great  critical  authorities  have  thus 
far  arisen,  within  the  church  or  out  of  it,  to  attract  a 
following  by  their  superior  position  or  to  compel  it  by 
the  force  of  their  reasoning.  In  fact,  the  majority  of 
controversialists  are  Philistines  by  profession. 

Still,  it  is  seldom  that  they  seem  inspired  by  such 
aversion  as  led  Rimarius,  a  century  later,  to  stigmatize 
the  leader  of  the  exodus  as  a  shameless  impostor.^  It 
is  rather  a  superabounding  intellectual  vitality  or  a 
restiveness  of  authority.  One  and  all,  as  I  have  already 
hinted,  concede  to  the  hand  of  Moses  what  would  now 
be  thought  a  fatal  preeminence  everywhere.  A  part  of 
them  only  have  any  knowledge  of  the  original  tongues 
of  Scripture.  With  an  embarrassing  profusion  of  con- 
jectures, there  is  a  lamentable  absence  of  really  signifi- 
cant facts.  The  masses  of  believing  people,  meanwhile, 
along  with  the  more  thoughtful  biblical  scholars  remain 
unmoved.  The  struggle  has  not  yet  transferred  itself 
to  the  church.  The  famous  representatives  of  Protest- 
antism, Carpzov,  Spanheim,  Prideaux,  and  Vitringa, 
stand  solidly  together  with  the  Roman  Catholics  Du 
Pin,  Calmet,  and  Simon,  in  defence  of  the  view  that  the 
Pentateuch  is  essentially  Mosaic. 

During  the  first  eighty  years  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury no  new  assaults  were  made  on  this  position. 
Michaelis,  in  his  Introductioii  to  the  Old  Testament,  the 

1  Cf.  the  Wol/enbuttel  Fragjuents.  It  was  a  work  published  by  Lessing  in  a  periodical 
form  from  1771,  under  the  title,  Ziir  Gcschichie  und  Litteratiir  aus  den  Sch'dizen  des 
herzoglichen  Bibliothek  z?<  Wolfeitbutiel. 


Historical  Sketch  of  the  Criticism.  55 

first  part  of  which  did  not  appear  till  1787/  could  not 
well  have  been  more  pronounced  in  support  of  it. 
"That  Moses,"  he  says,  "is  the  author  of  the  five  books 
which  we  ordinarily  name  from  him  is  the  common 
view  of  Jews  and  Christians ;  and  I  hold  it,"  he  adds, 
"not  only  as  perfectly  correct,  but  also  as  something 
which  is  as  certain  as  anything  that  can  be  asserted  of 
the  author  of  an  ancient  book  can  be."^ 

That  the  books  claim  to  be  that  for  which  the  Jews 
held  them,  he  regarded  as  indisputable.  Later  interpo- 
lations he  would  not  deny ;  but  that  Ezra,  David,  or  the 
high  priest  Hilkiah  had  surreptitously  introduced  the 
compositions  themselves  could  be  easily  shown  from 
their  contents  to  be  false.  With  equal  clearness,  and 
to  the  same  general  effect,  up  to  the  last  of  the  four 
editions  of  his  voluminous  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, appearing  from  1782  to  1824,  testified  Johann 
Gottfried  Eichhorn,  although  his  work  was  one  charac- 
terized by  great  boldness  of  conception,  the  highest 
scholarly  enthusiasm,  and  was  universally  recognized  as 
marking  a  new  departure  in  theological  science. 

In  the  meantime,  however,  there  were  evident  signs 
that  the  deepening  current  of  Pentateuch  criticism  was 
about  to  be  diverted  into  a  new  channel.  As  early  as 
1753  there  had  been  published  simultaneously  at  Brus- 
sels and  Paris  a  little  book  by  Jean  Astruc,  a  devout 
and  studious  Roman  Catholic  physician,  on  the  struc- 
ture of  Genesis.^  In  this  book  much  use  was  made  of 
the  circumstance  that  in  Genesis  the  names  of  God, 
Elohim  and  Jehovah,  arc  not  employed  indiscriminately, 

'^  Einleiiung in  die  Gottlichen  Schrifien  d.  Altett  Tesiatneiits.     Cf.  pp.  150,  153,  156. 

•A  similar  position,  ably  supported  by  arguments  drawn  from  the  works  themselves, 
was  taken  by  Jerusalem,  Dricfe  iiber  die  Mosaischen  Schrifien,  1783. 

^  Cofij'ectitres  siir  les  Memoires  originuKx  dent  il pardit  que  Moysc  s'est  servi />07ir 
composer  le  livre  de  la  Genese.  It  appeared  ia  a  German  translation  at  Frankfort  in 
1789. 


56  TJie  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

but  usually  alternate  with  one  another  in  what  appear 
to  be  alternate  sections. 

A  new  discovery  by  Astruc  this  was  not.  The 
same  singularity  had  been  observed  by  Simon,  Vitringa, 
and  others.  But  it  was  Astruc  who  first  called 
particular  attention  to  the  fact,  showed  its  extent,  and 
sought  to  draw  important  conclusions  from  it.  Such  an 
employment  of  the  divine  names  indicated,  in  his  view, 
the  use  of  documents  in  the  preparation  of  the  work, 
two  leading  ones  and  others  of  minor  importance.  Of 
these  original  records  Moses,  in  his  narrative  of  events 
which  had  occurred  ages  before  his  day,  had  made  faith- 
ful and  proper  use.  In  fact,  he  had  simply  copied  them 
literally  and  placed  them,  each  by  itself,  in  its  related 
order.  And  it  was  due  wholly  to  the  careless  hands  of 
Moses'  successors  that  in  recasting  them  for  the  purpose 
of  a  connected  narrative  there  had  arisen  the  repetitions 
and  other  irregularities  of  Genesis  as  it  now  appears. 

Of  this  original  theory  of  Astruc,  Eichhorn  had 
availed  himself  ;  but  by  no  means  as  a  servile  imitator. 
To  the  former's  argument  derived  from  the  peculiar 
recurrence  of  the  divine  names,  he  added  another,  of 
which  quite  too  confident  and  unrestricted  an  applica- 
tion has  since  been  made,  based  on  differences  of  style. 
The  entire  contents  of  the  first  fifty-two  chapters  of  the 
Pentateuch  he  carefully  divided  up  between  these  two 
documents,  holding,  however,  that,  in  some  rare  cases, 
other  authorities  had  been  made  use  of.^  From  begin- 
ning to  end,  as  it  has  been  remarked,  Eichhorn,  like 
Astruc,  was  loyal  to  the  prevailing,  and  almost  universal, 
sentiment  of  his  time,  that,  bating  certain  trifling  addi- 
tions by  later  editors,  Moses  was  the  responsible  author 
of  the  Pentateuch. 

^  Einleitung,  p.  107  f. 


Historical  Sketch  of  the  Criticism.  1 7 

It  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  so  reverent  a  scholar 
as  Astruc  and  so  sharp  a  critic  as  Eichhorn  did  not  see 
the  necessity  of  discriminating  between  the  fact  that 
original  documents  were  most  likely  used  in  the 
composition  of  Genesis  ^  and  the  capacity  of  modern 
scholars  clearly  to  distinguish  and  separate  them 
from  one  another,  even  to  closely  connected  phrases 
and  single  words.  It  is  singular  that  numerous 
marked  exceptions  to  the  alleged  methodical  recur- 
rence of  the  one  or  other  divine  name  did  not 
awaken  a  suspicion  that  something  besides  a  diversit}i 
of  documents  was  at  the  basis  of  such  an  interchange 
of  titles ;  as,  for  example,  a  change  of  topic  or  of 
point  of  view. 

It  is  an  acknowledged  impossibility,  in  fact,  to  found 
a  rational  theory  of  separable  documents  on  the  use  of 
the  divine  names  as  they  now  appear  in  Genesis  ;  it  is 
needful  first  to  introduce  another  theory  that  these 
names  have  been,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  displaced 
and  changed,  to  meet  the  exigencies  of  a  continuous 
history.  For  it  is  far  from  true  that  the  present 
so-called  Elohim  documents  are  exclusively  Elohistic  or 
the  Jehovah  documents  Jehovistic.^  And  were  they  so, 
what  possible  ground  could  it  furnish  for  carrying  on 
the  rigorous  analysis  through  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Num- 

1  That  such  a  people  as  Israel  is  known  to  have  been  should  have  definite  traditions 
both  written  and  oral  concerning  their  patriarchal  ancestors  and  the  beginnings  of  history 
and  that  these  traditions  were  of  sufficient  strength  to  survive  the  hard  experiences  of 
Egypt  is  no  unreasonable  hypothesis. 

-  Cf.  Professor  Green's  remarks  in  Schafll's  edition  of  Herzog  s.t.  "  Pentateuch,"  p.  1801 : 
"  As  the  ark  of  the  covenant  is  the  voucher  for  the  unity  of  the  sanctuary,  and  for  the 
genuineness  of  the  Mosaic  legislation  respecting  it,  so  the  contents  of  the  ark  form  no 
inconsiderable  bulwark  for  the  unity  of  the  Pentateuch.  If  monumental  evidence  is  to  be 
trusted,  the  Decalogue  is  Mosaic,  and  is  preserved  in  Ex.  xx.  in  its  genuine  authentic 
form.  The  critics  assign  it  to  the  Jehovist,  and  claim  for  it  the  characteristics  of  Jcho- 
vistic  style.  But  it  has  also  the  peculiar  phrases  of  Deuteronomy;  and  the  reason 
annexed  to  the  fourth  commandment  is  based  on  the  Elohistic  account  of  the  creation. 
(Gen.  i.  i-ii.  3).  This  imquestionably  Mosaic  document  includes  Elohist,  Jehovist,  and 
Deuteronomist  all  in  one," 


58         The  PentatcucJi :  Its  Origi7i  and  Structure. 

bers,  and  Deuteronomy,  where  even  this  slight  trace  of 
diversity,  or  any  other  that  can  be  made  generally 
intelligible,  fails  to  show  itself  ?  One  looks  for  more 
clearness  in  what  purport  to  be  scientific  investigations 
and  results.  The  analysis  of  water  into  its  original 
elements,  or  of  atmospheric  air,  may  be  made  demonstra- 
tive. Everybody  accepts  the  conclusion,  not  because 
he  wishes  to,  but  because  he  must.  In  this  other 
analysis,  started  by  Astruc  and  brought  to  its  climax,  it 
is  to  be  hoped,  by  Graf  and  Wellhausen,  where  elements 
are  concerned  more  subtle  and  irresponsive  to  our  tests 
than  oxygen  or  hydrogen,  there  is  nothing  to  compel 
the  assent  of  incredulity.  There  is  solely  the  dictum 
of  that  coterie  of  scholars  who,  for  some  reason  best 
known  to  themselves,  have  adopted  the  current  theory. 
If  it  were  unanimous,  it  would  still  be  far  from  indis- 
putable or  even  very  imposing. 

Take,  for  example,  the  fourth  chapter  of  Genesis, 
which,  because  the  name  for  God  used  in  it  is  generally 
Jehovah,  is  called  Jehovistic.  But  the  word  Elohim  is 
found  in  verse  25,  and  a  satisfactory  reason  for  its  occur- 
rence there,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  document 
hypothesis,  we  are  wholly  unable  to  discover.  Chapter 
xvii.,  on  the  other  hand,  is  pronounced  Elohistic  ;  but  at 
the  very  beginning  Jehovah  is  used  interchangeably 
with  El  Shaddai :  ^  "  Now  when  Abram  was  ninety-nine 
years  old  Jehovah  appeared  to  Abraham  and  said  unto 
him  I  am  El  Shaddai ;  walk  before  me,  and  be  thou 
perfect."  The  narrative  then  proceeds  with  the  uni- 
form use  of  Elohim  till  the  next  chapter  is  reached  and 
there  is  a  change  of  subject. 

^  This  title  is  identified  by  critics  generally  with  Elohim  ("cf.  Gen.  xxviii.)-  And  they 
are  consequently  forced  to  say  that  in  this  passage  Elohim  stood  in  the  original  instead  of 
Jehovah  and  was  changed  by  the  Jehovist.  But  this  is  entirely  out  of  harmony  with  the 
usage  of  the  Scriptures  which  makes  El  Shaddai  correlative  with  Jehovah. 


Historical  Sketch  of  the  Criticism.  59 

In  Genesis  xxviii.  20-22,  again,  in  one  and  the  same 
prayer  both  names  of  the  Deity  are  employed.  "  If 
Elohim  will  be  with  me,"  says  Jacob  at  Bethel,  .  .  . 
"and  I  come  again  unto  my  father's  house  and  Jehovah 
will  be  my  Elohim,  then  this  stone  which  I  have  set  up 
as  a  pillar  shall  be  the  house  of  Elohim." 

In  Exodus  iii.,  similarly,  and  inexplicably  as  it  seems 
to  us  on  the  hypothesis  of  the  documents,  these  two 
designations  of  the  divine  Being  are  freely  used  for  one 
another  in  the  account  of  the  burning  bush  at  Sinai. 
Of  the  unity  of  the  narrative,  there  ought  to  be  no 
doubt ;  it  is  stamped  upon  it  as  unmistakably  as  upon 
the  coin  from  the  mint.  Its  exceptional  character  in 
the  use  of  the  divine  names,  it  is  true,  has  been 
explained  by  calling  it  a  mixed  document.  But  it  is  the 
hypothesis  of  a  baffled  and  bewildered  criticism.  The 
very  necessity  of  acknowledging,  in  addition  to  other 
anomalies,  the  presence  of  such  mixed  documents  is  a 
confession  of  the  inadequacy  of  a  theory  based  on  the 
alleged  exclusive  use  of  a  certain  divine  name  in  cer- 
tain original  sections  of  the  Pentateuch, 

Why  the  two  words  Elohim  and  Jehovah  alternate 
with  one  another  so  peculiarly  in  the  earlier  chapters  of 
Genesis  may  be  accounted  for,  to  some  extent,  by  a 
theory  of  diverse  original  sources  of  information. 
There  is  no  disposition  to  deny  that  oral  tradition, 
supported  by  various  written  documents,  was  very 
largely  depended  on  in  the  composition  of  the  work. 
But  in  many  cases  this  peculiarity  may  be  better 
accounted  for  by  supposing  that  some  specific  moral 
purpose  voiced  itself  in  this  way.  What  that  purpose 
was  it  is  not  difficult  in  most  instances  even  now  to 
discover.  It  may  be  expected  to  appear  more  fully 
when  the  real  meaning  and  inner  relationships  of  the 
words  Elohim  and  Jehovah  have  be{Mi  determined. 


6o         TJie  PentateiicJi :    Its  Orinn  and  Structure. 


(i' 


Throughout  the  Pentateuch  there  is  a  marked  recog- 
nition of  the  meaning  of  names.  No  fact  is  more 
deeply  impressed  on  the  history  of  the  two  chief  patri- 
archs, Abraham  and  Jacob.  And  if  we  have  Elohistic 
and  Jehovistic  sections  in  Genesis,  so  we  have  in  the 
Psalms  and  other  Scriptures.  In  fact,  we  are  much 
more  likely  to  find  a  key  to  the  anomalies  of  Genesis  in 
the  nineteenth  Psalm,  where  the  Creator,  El,  of  the  first 
part  is  boldly  discriminated  from  the  Revealer,  Jehovah, 
of  the  second  part,  than  in  any  Conjectures  sur  les 
Mcmoires. 

In  Ecclesiastes,  too,  the  only  title  used  for  God  is 
Elohim,  while  in  Proverbs  the  case  is  reversed  and 
Jehovah  only  occurs.  So  in  Job,  while  both  titles  are 
employed,  it  is  in  a  way  of  unexampled  eccentricity,  i  If 
there  be  a  secret,  therefore,  it  is  not  one  that  is  confined 
to  Genesis,  It  is,  above  all,  no  secret  of  Pentateuch 
criticism,  in  general,  whose  conjectural  solution  it  is 
permitted  to  make  the  cornerstone  of  all  its  ponderous 
architectures. 

But  it  was  not  by  reasoning  of  this  kind  that  the 
hypothesis  of  documents  was  to  meet  its  overthrow ;  it 
was  rather  by  a  more  consistent  and  thorough  applica- 
tion of  its  own  false  postulates  within  the  Pentateuch 
itself.2  Astruc  and  Eichhorn  had  found  traces  of 
original  sources  in  Genesis,  but  had  been,  naturally, 
much  embarrassed  in  the  really  impossible  task  of 
dissecting  them  out  and  accounting  for  their  present 
form.  To  this  Sisyphus  problem  the  criticism  now 
addressed  its  chief  energies  and  from  that  day  to  this  it 
has  presented  itself  largely  in  the  role  of  the  manipu- 

1  In  the  prologue,  epilogue,  and  historical  portions  the  title  for  God  is  Jehovah  ;  while  in 
the  discourses  proper,  making  up  the  body  of  the  work,  it  is  El  or  Eloah. 

2  Much    the  same  line  of  reasoning   found   in  Eichhorn   is  followed  in   Ilgen's   Die 
Urkunden,  etc.,  and  Gramberg's  Libri  Geneseos  .  .  .  adumbratio  nova. 


Historical  Sketch  of  the  Criticism.  6 1 

lator  of  a  bewildering  spectacle  of  analyses  vying  with 
counter-analyses. 

Where  Eichhorn,  for  example,  had  seen  two  leading 
original  sources  with  an  occasional  excerpt  from  others, 
Vater,  apparently  with  the  same  spectacles,  saw  simply 
a  mass  of  fragments  with  neither  a  logical  nor  chrono- 
logical connection.  Their  present  juxtaposition  was 
due  to  a  series  of  collectors  and  editors  whose  dates 
range  from  the  time  of  David  to  that  of  Jeremiah. 

To  the  objection  that  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  so 
many  single,  disconnected  com.positions  as  circulating 
about  in  a  written  form  in  Israel,  he  replies  :  "  Difficult, 
to  be  sure,  it  is ;  but  it  is  a  difficulty  which  inheres  in 
the  subject,  that  is,  in  the  form  of  the  Pentateuch  as  it 
now  Appears.  And  it  is  far  less  difficult  and  a  great 
deal  less  artificial  than  the  theory  of  two  documents 
covering  the  same  ground,  the  parts  of  which  have  been 
patched  together  to  make  up  Genesis."^ 

Hasse  took  much  the  same  view^  in  his  earlier  work, 
but  retracted  it  twenty  years  later  ^  to  return  to  the 
position  that  the  Pentateuch  is  essentially  Mosaic. 

Its  ablest  supporter,  next  to  Vater,  and  a  more  dis- 
criminating one  than  he,  in  some  respects,  was  Anton 
Theodor  Hartmann.^  In  a  series  of  investigations 
extending  over  more  than  six  hundred  octavo  pages  he 
aims  to  show  from  a  variety  of  considerations  that  the 
so-called  Books  of  Moses  had  their  origin  in  a  number 
of  comparatively  insignificant,  more  or  less  mythical, 
post-Mosaic  fragments  which  formed  the  nuclei  of 
larger  .collections  and,  finally,  little  by  little,  were 
brought  together  and  took  on  the  volume  and  orderly 
arrangement  of  the  present  Pentateuch.  The  problem 
of  so  mysterious,  not  to  say  miraculous,  a  growth  min- 

1  Comnictitar,  \^.  514  f.  ^  Aussichten  zu  kun/iigen  Au/kl'drungen,  1785. 

^  Entdeckungen,  elc  ,  1805.  *Forschunsc?t,  etc. 


62         The  Pentateuch  :    Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

istered  to  by  invisible  hands,  witnessed  to  by  no  living 
creature,  does  not  seem  to  have  disturbed  the  equanim- 
ity with  which  the  author  of  Historisch-kritische  For- 
schungen  announces  his  far  from  historical  conclusions. 

The  theory  of  fragments,  on  which  that  of  the  docu- 
ments now  went  to  pieces,  had,  however,  this  advan- 
tage over  its  predecessor,  that  it  applied  with  greater 
uniformity  and  consistency,  not  alone  in  Genesis,  but 
throughout  the  Pentateuch,  the  principles  of  analysis  it 
had  inherited.  This  was  at  the  same  time  its  fatal 
misfortune.  It  brought  up  in  absurdity.  It  failed  to 
give  any  good  account  of  the  remarkable  unity  of 
design  and  symmetry  of  arrangement  which  are  among 
the  most  noticeable  characteristics  of  the  work  from 
beginning  to  end.  Hence  the  necessity  of  new  postu- 
lates in  which  this  factor  should  have  its  proper  place. 
It  was  provided  in  what  soon  came  to  be  known  as  the 
theory  of  supplements. 

The  way  had  been  prepared  for  it  by  publications 
from  De  Wette,^  Ewald,^  Gramberg,-^  Stahelin,*  Bleek,^ 
Tuch,^  and  others,  who  during  the  first  forty  years  of 
the  present  century  had  been  wrestling  with  the  same 
problem  as  Vater  and  Hartmann,  but  after  another 
method.  The  latter  had  made  a  chief  object  of  the 
analysis,  carrying  it  to  the  point  of  disintegration  ;  the 
former  worked  on  the  hypothesis  of  unity,  and  were 
constructive  where  the  other  had  been  destructive. 

De  Wette,  for  example,  characterized  what  seemed  to 
him  to  be  the  fundamental  portion  of  Genesis  as  an 
"Elohim  Epic."  Ewald  called  it  the  "Book  of  Ori- 
gins." Tuch,  the  "Original  Document."  One  and  all 
recognized  an  historical  groundwork  and  vindicated  for 

'^Kritik  der  Is.  Geschichte,  1807.  "^  Coiiiposition  dcr  Genesis,  1823.  ^  Librz  Genes- 
eos,  etc.,  1828.  *  Kritische  Untersuchungeu,  1830.  ^  De  libri  Gentseos  origine,  1836. 
«  Com,,  1838. 


Historical  Sketch  of  the  Criticism.  63 

the  composition  a  marked  unity  of  plan,  which,  how- 
ever, they  refused  to  believe  existed  from  the  beginning. 
An  original  Elohim  document  had  been  worked  up  by  a 
process  of  supplements  and  interpolations  into  what  we 
now  have  essentially  in  Genesis  ;  and  the  hand  that  did 
it  was  that  of  the  Jehovist.  "  Nay,  not  Genesis  alone," 
says  Tuch  :  "  but  the  whole  Hexateuch,  excepting  Deu- 
teronomy, including  the  legislation,  has  at  its  basis  an 
historical  composition,  in  which  God  is  styled  Elohim." 
Of  this  the  Jehovist  made  the  freest  use,  changing  it 
and  adding  to  it  to  suit  his  purpose,  until  the  result,  in 
its  main  features,  is  before  us. 

A  very  harmless  theory,  one  might  say.  Only  put 
Moses  in  the  place  of  the  Jehovist,  and  endue  him  with 
that  "wisdom  from  above,"  which  we  know  he  must 
have  had,  and  what  can  one  want  more .''  But  the 
theory  is  far  from  being  either  harmless  or  consistent. 
It  is  not  to  be  forgotten  that  Deuteronomy  is  unceremo- 
niously dropped  out  of  the  arrangement  as  a  later  pro- 
duction and  with  it,  naturally,  goes  Moses,  at  least,  the 
Moses  of  the  exodus.^  It  is  to  be  carefully  remem- 
bered that  these  men,  worthy  men  and  admirable 
scholars,  nevertheless  of  like  passions  with  ourselves, 
professed  to  be  able  to  point  out  the  —  to  us  —  invisible 
boundaries  of  the  so-called  original  document,  the  places 
where  it  has  been  supplemented  and  where  it  has  been 
changed,  but  with  a  fatal  lack  of  unanimity  in  doing  it. 

It  is  well  known,  moreover,  to  all  who  have  given  the 
subject  attention,  that  this  alleged  original  document, 
announced  as  containing  a  continuous  history  from  the 
beginning  of  the  world,  when  stripped  of  its  supposed 
accessories,  has  the  appearance  of  anything  else  rather 

lA  later  effort  of  Stahelin  {Kritische  Unlcrsuchungen  ubcr  den  Pentateuch,  dc, 
1843)  to  show  that  the  Jehovist  and  tlie  Deuteronomist  were  one  and  the  same  person, 
Delitzsch  characterizes  {Com,  iiber  die  Genesis,  p.  34)  as  a  failure. 


64        The  Peniatetich :    Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

than  a  continuous  history.  It  is  almost  as  lean  a  col- 
lection of  planless,  unintelligible  fragments  as  the 
conjectural  additions  of  the  Jehovist  would  be  when 
separated  from  their  context. 

And,  what  is  still  more  serious,  we  find  that  this 
so-named  original  history,  in  a  number  of  signal 
instances,  refers  back  to  matters  which,  by  our  critics, 
are  made  a  part  of  the  Jehovist's  additions.^  The  advo- 
cates of  the  theory  will  tell  us,  it  is  true,  that  these  are 
Jehovistic  interpolations  in  the  body  of  the  Elohim  doc- 
ument, or  are  disjecta  membra,  that  the  Elohim  docu- 
ment itself  originally  contained,  and  more  besides ;  all 
of  which  to  a  simple  inquirer,  who  is  not  already  pre- 
possessed with  accordant  theories,  has  quite  too  much 
the  appearance  of  evasion. 

But  objections  arising  from  without  and  from  an 
alleged  "unscientific"  point  of  view  could  not  be 
expected  to  have  great  weight  with  the  scholars  most 
concerned.  There  were  others,  however,  to  which  they 
could  not  remain  insensible.  The  theory  of  documents 
had  died  of  too  much  analysis.  Its  originals,  by  its 
own  friends  and  its  own  reasoning,  were  shown  to 
be  but  disconnected  fragments  that  could  never  be 
accepted  as  the  foundation  of  the  Pentateuch.  The 
theory  of  supplements,  on  the  other  hand,  died  of  too 
little  analysis.  If  Vater  and  Hartmann  had  gone  too 
far,  just  as  surely,  it  was  now  affirmed,  had  Ewald  and 
Bleek  failed  to  go  far  enough.  With  an  eye  single  to 
the  unity  of  the  work,  they  had  overlooked  important 
evidences  of  diversity.  An  edited  "  Book  of  Origins " 
did  not  meet  the  conditions  of  the  problem. 

It  was  Hupfeld  who  led  the  vigorous  and  successful 

iWith  Gen.  v.  29  cf.  iii.  17;    with  xvii.  20,  xvi.  10;   xix.  29  with  xiii.    10-13;  **'•• 
19  with  xxi.  33.     For  other  passages  see  Keil's  Introd.  i.,  p.  96. 


Historical  Sketch  of  the  Criticism.  65 

attack  on  the  current  hypothesis.^  He  charged  it  with 
accepting  as  a  sole  original  document  what  was  itself 
but  an  obvious  compilation.  Its  so-called  Elohim 
original  ought  to  be  divided,  as  already  Ilgen,^  fifty 
years  before,  had  pointed  out,  not  merely  into  two 
wholly  separate  Elohim  originals,  but  had  been  loaded 
down  besides  with  a  mass  of  heterogeneous  materials 
that  quite  obscured  its  true  character.  The  supposed 
Jehovist  editor  was  really  no  editor  at  all,  but  repre- 
sented an  original  work. 

There  were,  in  fact,  three  continuous  historical  com- 
positions at  the  foundation  of  the  Pentateuch,  two 
Elohistic  and  one  Jehovistic.  The  first  began  with  the 
creation  and  ended  with  the  partition  of  Canaan.  The 
second,  beginning  with  Genesis  xx.,  treated  only  of  the 
patriarchs  and  bore  a  striking  resemblance  to  the  Jeho- 
vistic. The  latter,  like  the  first  Elohistic,  originally 
contained  a  narrative  beginning  with  the  creation. 
These  three  quite  independent  accounts  a  later  editor 
combined  into  a  continuous  one,  hesitating  at  no 
liberties  with  the  text  he  had  before  him  to  accomplish 
his  design. 

This  was  the  hypothesis  of  Hupfeld,  and,  unsubstan- 
tial as  to  some  it  might  appear,  it  proved  to  be  made  of 
tougher  material  than  its  predecessor,  which  was  not 
long  in  giving  way  before  it.  Critics  since  his  time 
have,  indeed,  here  and  there,  shown  a  disposition  to 
yield  reluctantly  a  position  which  had  been  so  ably 
defended  by  masters  of  Old  Testament  research ;  but 
there  can  be  no  disputing  the  fact  that  the  main  current 
of  the  criticism  passed  quickly  into  the  channel  which 
Hupfeld's  strong  blows  cleaved  for  it. 

Henceforth  we  hear  less  of  a  document  and  more  of 

1  Quellen  der  Genesis,  1853.  ^  Die  Urkunden,  etc.,  1798. 


66         TJie  Pentateuch  :    Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

documents.  The  Jehovist  takes  his  place  beside  the 
Elohist,  like  an  Aaron  beside  Moses.  And  a  second 
Elohist,  introduced  to  relieve  perplexity,  has  become 
the  innocent  cause  of  other  perplexities.  Above  all  a 
Redactor  comes  upon  the  stage  who,  from  being,  at 
first,  a  mere  shifter  of  the  scenery,  in  a  brief  decade  or 
two  grows  to  be  the  chief  personage  of  the  drama. 

The  grounds  of  Hupfeld's  conclusions  we  cannot 
tarry  to  elucidate  at  length.  They  were  mainly  these 
two :  the  peculiar  use  of  the  divine  names,  and  the 
discrepancies  alleged  to  exist  between  the  Jehovist  and 
Elohists,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  two  Elohists  com- 
pared together,  on  the  other.  He  failed,  however,  to 
tell  us  how  his  theory  of  a  later  editor  who  was  blind 
to  these  discrepancies  while  sharp  enough  in  other 
respects  can  help  the  matter.  Might  not  the  Jehovist, 
too,  easily  have  overlooked  or  accounted  trivial  sup- 
posed disharmonies  which  a  Redactor  equipped  with 
modern  German  wisdom  and  dialectics  did  not  stumble 
at,  and  with  which,  moreover,  the  Jewish  people  for 
nearly  three  millenniums  have  had  no  serious  diffi- 
culty.? But,  at  least,  a  point  had  been  gained  in 
shifting  an  uneasy  burden.  It  could  scarcely  be 
expected  that  it  would  voluntarily  be  again  put  back  on 
the  same  sore  spot. 

Before  proceeding,  now,  to  show  the  main  course 
which  the  criticism  naturally  took  under  Hupfeld's 
sturdy  impulsion,  especially  its  chief  development  in 
our  own  times,  it  may  be  well  to  indicate  diverging 
lines.  As  I  have  said,  with  him,  about  thirty  years  ago, 
some  were  inclined  to  call  a  halt.  They  refused  to 
follow  the  new  master.  The  measuring-rule  of  the 
analysis  began,  apparently,  to  look  too  much  like  the 
wand  of  a  conjurer. 


Historical  Sketch  of  the  Criticism.  67 

Among  these  separists  and  remonstrants  was  Schra- 
der,  the  latest  editor  of  De  Wette's  Introduction  to  the 
Old  Testament. 

The  theory  he  represents  is  remarkable  for  the  preci- 
sion and  assurance  with  which  different  documents, 
so  called,  are  assigned  to  certain  periods  and  places  in 
Israelitish  history.^  The  leading  Elohim  section,  for 
example,  he  affirms  to  be  the  work  of  a  priest  of 
David's  time.  It  extends  to  the  end  of  the  Book  of 
Joshua.  The  second  Elohist  was  probably  from  north- 
ern Israel.  He  wrote  soon  after  the  disruption  of  the 
kingdom  (975-950  B.C.).  Down  to  near  the  middle  of 
the  first  Book  of  Kings  (i  Kings  ix.  28)  his  hand  can 
be  distinctly  traced.  The  Jehovist  was  also  a  northern 
Israelite,  who  came  upon  the  stage  a  little  more  than  a 
century  later  (825-800  b.c).  He  combined  the  two 
Elohists  in  one  work  with  his  own,  adding  to  the  compi- 
lation not  a  little  of  what  was  then  current  in  the  form 
of  oral  tradition.  Deuteronomy  (iv.  44-xxviii.)  sprung 
up  about  two  hundred  years  later,  its  author  himself 
uniting  it  to  the  still  incomplete  Hexateuch  structure. 
After  the  Babylonian  exile,  Joshua  was  separated  from 
the  other  five  books.^ 

It  will  be  seen  that  Schrader  follows  Hupfeld  but  in 
part.  He  agrees  with  him  in  his  main  divisions,  but 
differs  as  it  respects  the  origin  of  the  work  as  a  whole. 

Another  independent  critic  of  high  rank  is  Noldeke.^ 
According  to  him  the  authors  of  all  the  three  principal 
documents  lived  during,  or  not  long  after,  the  time  of 
David ;  but  the  first  Elohist  was  the  last  to  appear. 
The  Jehovist  worked  over  the  second  Elohist ;  but  it  is 

1  Cf.  Lebrbuch  der  Historisch-kritischen  Einleitung  (Da  Wette's),  1869,  pp.  232- 
325,  and  art.  "  Pentateuch  "  in  Schenkel's  Bibel-Lex. 

2  See  a  careful  risiimi  of  this  and  other  theories  in  Strack's  art.  "  Pentateuch"  in 
Herzog's  Encyk.  2te  Aufl. 

»  Untersuchungen  zur  Kritik  d.  A.  T.  1869.       ^ 


68         The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

impossible  now  to  separate  the  two  into  their  con- 
stituent parts.  The  Deuteronomist  wrote  antecedent 
to  the  reforms  of  Josiah  and  incorporated  his  work  with 
the  Hexateuch.  Most  significant  is  Noldeke's  position 
in  two  respects:  that  hke  Schrader  he  believes  Deu- 
teronomy followed  not  only  the  second  but  the  first 
Elohist,  and  that  the  attempt  to  classify,  at  present, 
two  of  the  leading  so-called  original  documents  of  the 
Pentateuch  is  labor  lost. 

More  important  even  than  the  dissent  of  Schrader 
and  Noldeke  is  that  of  August  Dillmann.  As  to  the 
difference  in  age  between  the  two  Elohists  he  ventures  to 
assert  nothing.  The  second  is  certainly  somewhat  older 
than  the  Jehovist,  who  makes  use  of  it,  and  seems,  like 
Deuteronomy,  to  have  arisen  not  long  before  the  reign 
of  Josiah.  All  the  three  are  based  on  still  more  ancient 
authorities,  the  nucleus  of  the  second  Elohist  being  the 
Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  xx.  22-xxiii.  19).  In  this 
last  statement,  Dillmann,  it  will  be  carefully  noted, 
differs  from  most  other  critics  early  and  late,  who 
assign  this  important  portion  of  Exodus  to  the  Jehovist, 
Noldeke,  however,  avowing  a  non  possiimus. 

In  his  commentary  on  Genesis  published  twelve  years 
since,!  Delitzsch  characterized  an  assertion  of  Merx,^ 
that  Hupfeld  had  overthrown  the  hypothesis  of  supple- 
ments, as  a  mistake.  In  the  cases  just  cited  we  see  few 
signs  of  its  survival  except  as  a  wreck,  portions  of  which 
have  been  variously  fitted  up,  according  to  individual 
taste,  to  complete,  if  possible,  the  uncertain  voyage. 
Delitzsch  himself  has  so  far  modified  his  views  within 
a  short  time  that  even  the  hypothesis  of  supplements 
must  now  look  exceedingly  antiquated  to  him.  He 
accepts,  contrary  to  Schrader  and  Dillmann,  the  order 

1  Com.  uber  die  Genesis,  1872.    Cf.  p.  34.      2  Tuch's  Com.  2te  Aufl.  p.  Ixxxviii.  ff. 


Historical  Sketch  of  the  Criticism.  6g 

of  the  documents  adopted  by  the  most  recent  analysts, 
that  is,  Jehovist,  second  Elohist,  Deuteronomy,  first 
Elohist,  but  differs  greatly  from  them  as  respects  the 
time  of  composition.  The  Jehovist  and  Deuteronomist, 
as  he  holds,  both  wrote  before  Isaiah,  the  second  Elohist 
before  Ezekiel ;  and  while  the  work  of  composing  and 
emending  the  Pentateuch  probably  went  on  till  after  the 
Babylonian  exile,  it  is  still  fundamentally  Mosaic  and 
the  product  of  supernatural  revelation. 

Professor  Delitzsch,^  as  his  many  pupils  and  friends 
gladly  recognize,  is  a  strong  and  delightful  man  and  an 
admirable  scholar.  But  it  is  a  very  stiff  and  ugly  cur- 
rent, in  which  he  has  thus  placed  himself,  and  the  result 
is  not  yet  clear.  He  will  at  least  pardon  the  wish  that 
he  may  get  safely  out  of  it. 

And  here  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  consider  some 
important  conclusions  that  seem  to  flow  out  of  the 
several  sporadic  views  we  have  been  considering. 
They  are  important  out  of  all  proportion  to  their 
number.  They  are  not  the  views  of  laymen,  but  of 
eminent  biblical  scholars  who  believe  in  criticism  and, 
to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  in  the  principles  of  Penta- 
teuch analysis.  These  scholars  notoriously  disagree 
not  only,  in  some  points,  from  one  another,  but  espe- 
cially from  the  great  body  of  critics  with  whom  they  are 
often  indiscriminately  classed.  If  it  were  simply  a  dif- 
ference of  view  respecting  the  time  when  the  several 
documents  appeared,  though  the  difference  were  a  thou- 
sand years,  as  in  some  cases  it  is,  it  would  be,  from  the 
point  of  viezv  of  the  criticism,  serious  without  being 
strictly  essential.  But  when  one  calls  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant  (Ex.    xx.    22-xxiii.    19)  with  all    its    striking 

'Cf.,  in  addition  to  "  Pentateuch-kritische  Studien  "  in  Zeitschrift  fur  Kirchlichc 
Wissenschaft ,  etc.  1880,  Hebrew  Student,  1882,  Nos.  i.-iv.  and  Curtiss's  art.  "  Delitzsch 
on  the  Origin  and  Composition  of  the  Pentateuch"  in  Presbyterian  Review,  July.  iSi" 


70  TJie  PentateiicJi :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

characteristics  Elohistic  while  others  call  it  Jehovistic, 
it  touches  the  vital  question  of  the  analysis  at  a  vital 
point.     It  is,  in  fact,  an  axe  laid  at  the  root  of  the  tree. 

When  another,  who  fully  believes  in  this  newly  dis- 
covered prerogative  for  determining  and  resolving  docu 
ments  in  the  Pentateuch,  nevertheless  disputes  the 
power  of  anybody  to  separate  Jehovist  from  second 
Elohist,  it  is  a  staggering  blow  at  the  very  foundation 
of  the  critical  fabric.  When  such  scholars  as  Schrader, 
Noldeke,  and  Dillmann  unite  in  the  opinion  that  the 
latest  composition  of  the  Pentateuch  is  Deuteronomy, 
the  fact  that  this  is  the  old  historical  position  is  of  little 
account  here  in  comparison  with  another  matter :  that 
the  critics  are  divided  at  a  point  where  the  contact 
should  have  been  closest.  A  fatal  distrust  of  critical 
opinions  is  necessarily  awakened.  One  may,  indeed, 
be  pointed  back  to  the  first  nine  chapters  of  Genesis 
and  reminded  that  at  this  point  Noldeke  and  Dillmann 
find  themselves  in  almost  exact  agreement  in  what  they 
impute  to  the  first  Elohist.  The  only  difference,  it  is 
said,  concerns  five  verses  or  parts  of  verses.  But  opin- 
ions on  the  first  few  chapters  of  Genesis  are  harmless 
byplay  compared  with  the  dismemberment  and  disloca- 
tion of  the  Pentateuch.  Besides,  there  is  still  a  differ- 
ence in  five  verses  or  parts  of  verses.  And  it  is  by  no 
means  certain  that  this  apparently  small  disagreement, 
taken  in  connection  with  other  anomalies  of  the  criti-- 
cism,  does  not  thoroughly  vitiate  the  whole  matter, 
investing  it  with  elements  of  uncertainty  that  not  only 
destroy  its  value  for  purposes  of  scientific  study,  but 
also,  and  especially,  show  its  incompatability  with  a 
revelation  such  as  the  Bible  purports  to  be. 

We   now   turn   to   follow   the  main    current   of    the 
criticism   from    the   time    of    Hupfeld,     The   work   of 


Historical  Sketch  of  the  Criticism.  yi 

Edward  Bohmer^  was  of  minor  interest  except  as  an 
indication  of  the  self-assurance  bordering  on  frivolity 
with  which  subjective  opinions  were  pronounced  on  the 
age  and  order  of  appearance  of  the  Pentateuch  compo- 
sitions. His  principal  difference  from  Hupfeld  was  in 
a  more  detailed  and  slightly  altered  analysis. 

In  1 86 1  Knobel  completed  his  series  of  scholarly 
commentaries  on  the  Hexateuch.  In  themselves  con- 
sidered they  marked  a  reaction  from  current  views. 
But  Knobel  was  no  come-outer.  He  was  simply  a  sur- 
viving representative  of  an  earlier  order  of  things. 
The  flood  had  not  floated,  but  only  stranded,  him. 
His  continued  advocacy  of  the  exploded  supplement 
hypothesis,  together  with  a  quite  original  analysis, 
excited  curiosity  but  did  not  win  adherents.  Critics 
have  even  had  the  temerity  since  to  suggest  that  the 
documents  of  which  he  so  confidently  spoke  had  no 
existence,  save  in  Knobel's  imagination.^ 

Keil's  Commentary  on  the  Pentateuch  also  began  to 
appear  in  1861.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  its  clear 
reasoning  and  conservative  spirit  had  no  perceptible 
influence  in  checking  the  tide  so  strongly  setting  in 
a  contrary  direction.  It  was  no  fault  of  Keil.  His 
arguments  from  his  own  point  of  view,  which  we 
must  believe  to  be  in  the  main  correct,  have  never  been 
answered.  They  are  unanswerable.  Kiel's  misfortune 
was,  if  it  can  be  styled  a  misfortune  to  be  called  upon 
to  "face  a  frowning  world"  in  defence  of  what  one 
believes  to  be  the  truth,  that  the  Zeitgeist  was  against 
him.  Some  day,  however,  this  very  fact  may  prove  to 
be  his  grandest  distinction. 

Bishop  Colenso's  voluminous  work^  added  little  to 

1  Das  Erste  Buch  dcr  Tliora,  etc.  1862. 

*  Kuenen,  in  Bleek's  Einlcit.   (1878),  p.  153. 

*  Jhe  Pentateuch  and  Book  of  Joshua  Critically  Examined,  1862. 


72  TJie  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

the  discussion  that  was  new ;  it  added  something  to 
the  acerbity  and  tartness  of  it,  and  served  to  advertise 
more  widely  the  revolutionary  movement  that  was  in 
progress  beyond  the  English  Channel. 

The  same  year,  however,  there  appeared  a  little 
treatise  by  Julius  Popper,^  which,  though  extravagant 
even  to  incoherence  in  some  of  its  positions,  in  one 
important  respect  marked  a  turning-point  in  the  criti- 
cism of  the  Pentateuch.  The  legislation  that  con- 
cerned the  building  of  the  tabernacle  contained  in 
Exodus  XXXV. -xl.,  and  the  consecration  of  the  priests  in 
Leviticus  viii.-x.,  according  to  him,  did  not  take  on  its 
present  form  until  long  after  the  period  of  the  exile. 
Moreover,  the  work  ascribed  to  the  first  Elohist,  so  far 
from  being  a  connected  composition  was  the  product  of 
a  long-continued  revision  {diaskeue)  to  which  even  Ezra 
was  far  from  giving  the  finishing-touch. 

Popper's  conclusions,  which  he  largely  deduced  from 
the  divergences  of  the  Samaritan  and  Septuagint  texts 
from  the  Massoretic,  were  too  slenderly  supported  to 
attract  more  than  a  very  limited  attention.  But  they 
served  to  encourage  the  watchful  Graf  in  a  scheme 
which,  as  subsequently  elaborated  by  Wellhausen,  now 
dominates  Germany. 

Graf  was  a  pupil  of  Reuss.^  For  more  than  fifty  years 
the  master  has  been  unsuccessfully  iterating  views  for 
which  the  pupil,  only  in  another  form  and  manner, 
won  an  almost  immediate  hearing.  Perhaps,  for 
once,  the  Frenchman  failed  in  the  traditional  suavity 
as  well  as  in  tact.  He  would  not  allow  that  even 
the  Decalogue  is  Mosaic.  The  historical  portions  of 
the   Pentateuch    he    bluntly   declared   to  be    a  "gross 

1  Der  Biblische  Bericht  tibcr  die  Stiftshutte,  etc. 

2Cf.   his   Geschichte  ties  Alien    Test.    §   71,  and  others   of  his  works  n«ted  in  the 
Bibliography 


Historical  Sketch  of  the  Criticism.  73 

fiction  .  .  .  dreams  of  an  impoverished  people."  Its 
laws  really  arose  after  the  Prophets  and  are  a  post- 
exilian  precipitate  following  ages  of  production  and 
revision.  The  Book  of  the  Covenant  belongs  to  the 
time  of  Jehosaphat.  Deuteronomy  is  an  invention  of 
Josiah  to  help  out  a  lagging  reform. 

Such  bold  statements  of  Reuss,  which  his  pupil  and 
literary  successor  was  to  clothe  in  a  less  repugnant 
form  and  support  by  more  telling  arguments,  radical  as 
they  may  appear,  actually  show  but  a  slight  divergence 
from  the  position  of  Hupfeld  and  Bohmer,  save  in  the 
one  intangible  element  of  time.  It  is  not  a  difference 
in  underlying  principles.  Reuss,  Vater,  and  Vatke 
simply  refused  to  wait  for  the  slow  deductions  which 
brought  their  fellows  and  successors  at  last  to  the  same 
result.  They  unceremoniously  leaped  the  chasm  which 
Graf's  hypothesis  bridged.  The  chief  service  of  the 
latter  is  well  illustrated  by  a  remark  of  Duhm  -.^  "  Noth- 
ing is  simpler,"  he  says,  "than  the  theory  of  Graf.  It 
was  only  needful  to  place  a  single  original  authority, 
which  is  generally  called  the  'fundamental  document,' 
by  others,  the  'Book  of  Origins,'  as  the  composition  of 
the  first  Elohist  ...  in  the  post-exilian  times,  in  the 
days  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  in  order,  with  one  blow,  to 
put  the  'Mosaic  period'  out  of  the  world." 

Graf's  earliest  publication  ^  was  mainly  tentative,  yet 
quite  in  the  line  of  his  latest  conclusions.  In  it  he 
took  the  ground  that  the  tabernacle  is  simply  a  diminu- 
tive copy  of  Solomon's  temple.  All  that  was  said  about 
it  in  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  belongs  to 
their  latest  post-exilian  accretions.  Eleven  years  later 
when  his  principal  work  appeared,^  he  was  prepared  to 

*  Die  Theologie  dcr  Prophctcn,  p.  17. 

'  Commcntntio  de  tcinplo  Siloiioisi,  1855. 

»  Die  Geschichtlichen  Buclier  dcs  A.  T.  iS66. 


74  The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

say  that  not  only  the  legislation  which  concerned  the 
tabernacle,  but  all  the  laws  of  the  first  Elohist — that  is, 
the  great  body  of  legislation  found  in  Exodus,  Leviticus, 
and  Numbers  —  was  of  the  same  late  origin.  The  his- 
torical portions  of  this  document,  however,  as  had  been 
held  all  along  since  Astruc's  day  by  the  majority  of 
critics,  he  still  made  the  oldest  portions  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. 

Like  Stahelin^  and  Bertheau  ^  before  him,  he  found  the 
nucleus  of  this  conglomerate  of  compositions  in  the  laws 
that  make  up  its  middle  part.  To  provide  a  place  for 
them  seemed  to  him  the  first  concern.  In  doing  this 
Graf  wrenched  the  first  Elohist  out  of  its  historical 
setting  and  brought  inextricable  confusion  into  the 
analysis.  His  order  of  documents  was  :  first  Elohist, 
(historical  portions),  Jehovist  (including  second  Elohist), 
Deuteronomist,  final  Redactor  (who  enlarged  the  col- 
lection by  the  addition  of  the  Levitical  and  other 
priestly  legislation).  But  this  final  Redactor,  so  called, 
was  really  no  other  than  the  first  Elohist,  reappearing 
under  another  name.  So  Riehm  ^  and  others  *  pointed 
out  and  argued  that,  unless  Graf  gave  up  the  leading 
principles  of  the  analysis  as  hitherto  applied,  he  had  no 
right  to  separate  the  legislative  portions  of  this  the 
most  important  document  of  the  Pentateuch  from  the 
historical.  Graf  yielded  to  the  force  of  this  argumenta- 
tion,^ but  without  retracing  his  steps.  "  Riehm  is 
right,"  he  said,  "and  hence  I  must  maintain  that  the 
whole  of  the  first  Elohist,  history  as  well  as  laws,  is 
post-exilian." 

It  was  an  audacious  announcement,  but  one  for  which 

^  Ibid.  2  j){g  Sieben  Grup^en  Mosaischer  Gesetze,  1840. 

3  Stud.  u.  Kritik.  1868,  pp.  350-379. 

*  Kuenen,  De  Godsdienst  van  Israel,  p.  202. 

f"  Merx.  Archiv,  etc.  1869,  pp.  466-477. 


Historical  Sketch  of  the  Criticism.  75 

the  way  had  been  prepared,  as  we  have  seen,  by  Rcuss, 
Popper,  and  the  earher  works  of  Graf  himself.  The 
time  had  come,  in  fact,  when  critics  were  waiting  for 
another  turn  of  the  kaleidoscope.  The  old  combina- 
tions no  longer  satisfied  them.  The  documents  found 
no  secure  resting-places  in  the  periods  to  which  they 
had  been  assigned.  It  remains  to  be  seen  how  long  the 
present  hypothesis,  supported  though  it  be  by  an 
external  unanimity  hitherto  unknown,  can  resist  the 
elements  of  antagonism  and  disruption  that  even  iiv 
greater  measure  have  been  gathered  up  within  it. 

One  of  the  first  to  come  to  the  defence  of  the  nev« 
position  was  Kuenen,i  who  argued  its  truthfulness  from 
an  historic  point  of  view.  Then  Kayser,^  who  treated 
more  especially  the  literary  side  of  the  argument.  Fol- 
lowing them  was  Duhm,^  who,  assuming  the  theory  to 
be  established,  attempted  to  construct  a  theology  of  the 
prophets  on  the  basis  of  it.  So  far  from  being  de- 
pendent on  the  Mosaic  history  and  institutions,  they 
antedated  them,  as  he  held :  in  fact,  were  the  indirect 
occasion  and  inspiration  of  them. 

None  of  these  writers,  however,  exerted  a  tithe  of  the 
influence,  in  bringing  the  hypothesis  to  its  present  wide 
prevalence,  of  Julius  Wellhausen.^  By  the  boldness  of 
his  conjectures,  the  precision  of  his  analysis,  the 
keenness  and  breadth  of  his  reasoning,  sophistical  and 
specious  only,  though  it  often  is,  as  well  as  by  an 
unusually  attractive  style,  he  has  succeeded  in  giving  it 
a  currency  which  is,  at  least,  unexampled  in  the  history 
of  Old  Testament  criticism.  He  marks  the  culminatincr 
point  in  that  method  of  criticism  that  took  its  rise  with 

*  Ibid.,  and  numerous  articles  in  the  Theologisch  Tijdschrift. 

*  Das  vorexilische  Bitch,  etc.  1874.  ^  Ibid. 

*  yahrbiicher  fur  dciitsche    Theologie,   1877,    1878;     Bleek's    Einleitutig  (1878); 
Geschickte  Israel's  (1878) ;  Art.  "  Israel"  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Britatmica,  etc. 


"j^         The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Astruc  and  Eichhorn.  But  the  distance  at  which  he 
stands  removed  from  Astruc  and  Eichhorn,  or  even  from 
De  Wette  and  Bleek,  it  would  be  difficult  for  the  un- 
initiated to  conceive. 

It  was  a  simple  thing  to  do,  as  Duhm  affirmed,  to 
transfer  what  had  been  regarded  as  the  fundamental 
document  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  making  up  one  half 
of  its  matter,^  to  the  period  of  the  Persian  supremacy. 
What  is  easier  than  a  conjecture }  Two  efforts  of  Graf, 
with  the  encouragement  of  his  master  and  other  sym- 
pathizers,  accomplished  it.  But  if  it  be  anything  more 
than  a  conjecture,  if  it  rest  on  fact,  it  is  a  stupendous 
change  that  has  been  effected.  The  keystone  has  been 
taken  from  the  arch  of  Israelitish  history,  as  hitherto 
read  and  understood,  and  the  whole  structure  lies  in 
ruins.  I  have  already,  in  the  introductory  paper,  noted 
some  objections  and  indicated  a  few  of  the  startling 
results  flowing  from  such  an  hypothesis,  I  will  here 
content  myself  in  concluding  the  present  one  with 
offering  some  additional  reasons  for  regarding  it  only  as 
an  Jiypothesis,  and  palpably  one  of  the  most  untenable 
character. 

The  scheme,  as  already  outlined,  calls  for  the  follow- 
ing division  and  distribution  of  the  Pentateuch :  we 
have  first  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  xx.-xxiii., 
xxxiv.),  which  is  tolerably  ancient ;  but,  if  dating  from 
Moses,  not  necessarily  left  by  him  in  a  written  form  or 
containing  the  Decalogue  in  its  present  shape.  Then, 
the  Jehovist  and  second  Elohist,  circulating  orally  and 
separately  at  first  and  so  undergoing  changes  and 
additions,  to  be  at  last  united  together  by  the  Jehovist 
in  the  period  after  the  division  of  the  kingdom.  Third, 
the    laws    of     Deuteronomy   and    other  Deuteronomic 

1  For  its  contents  see  the  table  at  the  close  of  this  paper. 


Historical  Sketch  of  the  Criticism.  "jy 

revisions  toward  the  end  of  the  seventh  century  B.C. 
Fourth,  the  programme  of  Ezekiel's  temple  (xl.-xlviii.), 
marking  the  greatest  transition  of  the  history.  Fifth, 
certain  chapters  of  Leviticus  (xvii.-xxvi.).  Sixth,  the 
first  Elohist,  or  "  Priests'  Code  "  as  it  has  come  to  be 
called,  containing  the  rest  of  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch 
with  their  historical  setting  prefaced  by  the  account  of 
the  creation  (Gen.  i.).  The  whole  work  was  completed 
and  introduced,  according  to  Wellhausen,  in  the  year 
444  B.C.,  and  in  this  most  delicate  and  most  difficult 
operation  of  all  the  chief  role  was  assumed  by  the 
"Redactor." 

(i)  It  may  be  remarked  now,  first,  as  it  respects  such 
a  scheme,  that  it  is  by  no  means  claimed  by  its  oppo- 
nents that  the  assumption  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch  removes  all  difficulties  from  the  ques- 
tion of  its  composition,  but  simply  that  this  assumption 
is  beset  with  the  fewest  difficulties. 

(2)  It  is  one  of  the  clearly  mistaken  postulates  of  the 
proposed  hypothesis  that  it  represents  the  Israel  of  the 
Mosaic  period  as  an  undisciplined  and  savage  horde. 
As  matter  of  fact,  it  had  already  become  a  separate 
people  and  was  rapidly  developed  into  a  nation  in  the 
midst  of  abundant  means  and  inspiring  models  for  high 
social,  literary,  and  religious  progress. 

(3)  Granting  for  the  moment  the  reality  of  what  is 
apparently  claimed  in  the  Pentateuch  to  be  Moses  and 
the  work  of  Moses,  it  cannot  but  be  acknowledged 
that  there  is  no  character,  in  the  Bible  or  out  of  it, 
better  fitted  to  be  the  mediator  of  such  laws  and  the 
magna  pars  of  such  a  history  than  the  adopted  son  of 
Pharaoh's  daughter,  the  reputed  leader  of  the  exodus. 

(4)  It  is  incredible  that  a  people  long  under  the  influ- 
ence  of    Egypt,    where    a    powerful    priesthood    with 


78  The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

established  rights  and  privileges  existed,  should  itself 
have  remained  a  whole  millennium  of  subsequent  inde- 
pendent existence  without  priests  or  written  regulations 
for  them. 

(5)  The  positive  and  often-repeated  claim  made  in  the 
Pentateuch  itself  for  Mosaic  authorship  in  general  has 
not  only  the  emphatic,  if  sometimes  exaggerated, 
external  support  of  all  authorities  from  his  day  down- 
ward, but  also  the  incidental  corroboration  of  a  multi- 
tude of  internal  characteristics  appropriate  to  his  age 
and  circumstances.  To  all  this  the  counter-evidence  of 
the  criticism  can  hold  no  comparison  either  in  trust- 
worthiness or  extent. 

(6)  The  doctrinal  teaching  of  those  parts  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch assigned  by  the  Wellhausen  theory  to  the  time 
of  the  exile,  at  least  equally  with  its  other  portions,  is 
of  a  primitive  and  undeveloped  character,  reflecting 
rather  an  Israelitic  connection  with  the  Egypt  of 
Rameses  II.  and  ancient  Chaldaea  than  with  Cyrus  and 
his  successors  of  the  Persian  period. 

(7)  It  is  not  denied  that  documents  were  used  in  the 
composition  of  Genesis  and  to  a  limited  extent  in  the 
other  five  books  of  the  Hexateuch.  A  priori  nothing 
could  be  more  likely.  But  it  is  denied,  the  critics  them- 
selves being  among  our  witnesses,  that  any  reliable 
criteria  have  as  yet  been  discovered,  or  are  likely  to  be 
discovered,  for  discriminating  with  accuracy  among 
them.^ 

1  The  remarks  of  Professor  Green,  in  the  American  edition  of  Herzog's  Encyk.  s.v. 
"  Pentateuch,"  p.  i8oi,  are  worthy  of  special  attention.  He  says  of  the  critical  analysis  of 
the  Pentateuch:  "  Some  things  arc  plausibly  said  in  its  favor,  but  there  are  serious  objec- 
tions to  it  which  have  never  yet  been  removed.  I  cannot  regard  it  as  certainly  estab- 
lished, even  in  the  Book  of  Genesis,  much  less  in  the  remainder  of  the  Pentateuch  where 
even  Bleek  confessed  he  could  no  longer  sunder  the  Elohist  from  the  Jehovist:  the  second 
Elohist  he  could  find  nowhere.  Thus  much,  at  least,  may  be  safely  said:  the  criteria 
of  this  proposed  analysis  are  so  subtle,  not  to  say  mechanical,  in  their  nature,  so  many 
purely  conjectural  assumptions  are  involved,  and  there  is  such  an  entire  absence  of  exler- 


Historical  Sketch  of  the  Criticism.  79 

(8)  While  differences  of  style  may  be  recognized  to 
some  extent,  even  within  the  limits  of  the  Hebrew  of 
the  Pentateuch,  it  is  often  quite  as  likely  to  be  due  to 
a  difference  in  the  matter  treated  as  to  diverse  author- 
ship or  date.  In  any  case,  the  style  of  the  "  Priests' 
Code,"  assigned  by  Wellhausen  to  the  exile,  must  be 
admitted  to  have  the  peculiar  coloring  of  the  most 
ancient  Biblical  Hebrew,  and  to  be  burdened  in  places 
with  infinitesimal  details  touching  matters  foreign  to 
the  cultus  of  the  later  period.^ 

(9)  The  matter  of  the  time  when  the  documents 
were  composed  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  other 
questions  that  concern  their  separation  and  distribu- 
tion. If  the  latter,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  are 
largely  conjectural,  the  former  is  still  more  so.  Dill- 
mann,  Schrader,  and  Riehm,  who  accept  certain 
features  of  the  analysis,  nevertheless  insist  that  the 
first  Elohist  is  the  oldest  document  of  the  Pentateuch, 
while  Graf,  Wellhausen,  and  others  claim  that  it  is  the 
youngest ;  and  some  who  adopt  Wellhausen' s  order  of 
arrangement  differ  extremely  from  him  as  it  respects 
origin  and  date. 

nal  corroborative  testimony,  that  no  reliance  can  be  placed  in  its  conclusions,  where  these 
conflict  with  statements  of  the  history  itself.  Genesis  may  be  made  up  of  various  docu- 
ments and  yet  have  been  compiled  by  Moses.  And  the  same  thing  is  possible  in  the  later 
books  of  the  Pentateuch." 

1  Cf.  Ryssel,  De  Elohistas  Pcntaieuchici  Sermone,a.ndL'D€[\\.z&c\\  in  Zeitschrift  fur 
Kirchliche  Wissenschaft,  etc.  1880,  pp.  393-399.  The  remark  of  Driver,  in  the  second 
edition  of  his  e,\cellent  Treatise  on  the  Use  of  the  IIcbrcM  Tenses  (Oxford,  1881), 
Preface,  p.  x.,  that  Delitzsch,  in  this  article,  unreservedly  accepts  the  position  that  the  use 
of  Ji{^n  as  a  feminine  in  the  Pentateuch  is  not  an  archaism,  seems  to  me  to  be  aii  incorrect 
inference  from  Delitzsch's  words.  On  p.  397  f.,  for  e.xample,  he  says:  "Da  nun  aber 
dieses  sogar  von  Personen  weiblichen  Geschlechts  gebrauchte  feminine,  Xlu,  auch  schon 
zur  Zeit  der  Tcxtrcdaktion  als  Sprachfehlcr  gait  (denn  cs  ist  ausserhalb  des  Pcntateuchs 
imerhort  und  in  dem  Samaritanischcn  hebraischen  Pentateuch  ist  es  durchweg  bcseitigt), 
so  liegt  der  Textredaktion  die  Voraussetzung  unter,  dass  in  der  Sprache  der  Mosaischen 
Zeit,  obgleich  sie  ein  fiir  das  Femininum  ausgepragtes  X^D  besass,  doch  der  doppel- 
geschlcchtige  Gebrauch  das  XTH  vorgehcrssclit  und  die  Genusuntcrscheidung  sich  auf  der 
unterstcn  Stufe  der  Entwickelung  befunclen  halx;."  Cf.  also  Konig,  Z)^  Criticae  Sacral 
ArgHVicnto  e  Linguae  Legibus  Repetitu  (T.c!   / .  1879),  p.  27. 


8o         TJie  Pejitatcuch  :  Its  Oris[in  and  Structure, 


i) ' 


(lo)  It  is  a  serious  objection  to  the  chronology  of  the 
documents  as  assigned  by  Graf  and  his  successors,  from 
the  point  of  view  of  the  criticism  they  represent,  that 
the  Jehovist  document,  containing  an  account  of  the  fall 
of  man  and  the  earliest  promise  of  his  recovery,  not  only 
logically,  but  especially  theologically,  considered  the 
most  important  of  the  Pentateuch  records,  is  placed  at 
the  beginning  of  a  millenial  development.  Too  early, 
as  they  would  hold,  for  a  jDrotevangelium,  it  certainly  is 
too  coherent  and  purposeful  for  a  myth. 

A  similar  inconsistency  mars  the  alleged  development 
in  other  respects.  From  the  time  of  Samuel  and  the 
earlier  prophets,  for  example,  there  is  held  to  be  a  rapid 
deterioration  from  a  state  of  high  spirituality  to  the 
baldest  ceremonialism.  But  this  is  as  much  opposed  to 
the  principle  that  the  religion  of  Israel  is  a  natural 
growth  as  it  is  to  the  actual  history  of  the  period.^ 

(ii)  The  hypothesis  into  which  those  of  De  Wette 
and  Hupfeld  have  bloomed,  to  say  nothing  of  its  earlier 
phases,  is  based  largely  on  a  series  of  petitio  principii. 
It  is  obliged  to  assume  at  the  outset  the  impossibility 
of  much  its  opponents  regard  as  vital :  as,  for  example, 
the  historical  credibility  of  the  Pentateuch,  particularly 
on  its  supernatural  side.  To  the  books  that  bear  wit- 
ness against  it,  it  assigns  a  novel  position  which 
insures  their  silence,  or  it  renders  their  evidence 
nugatory  by  charges  of  interpolation  and  revision. 
Proof  texts  play  a  less  prominent  part  in  its  programme 

1  Weddell's  remarks  in  the  Old  Testament  Student  for  June,  1884,  p.  402,  have  in  view 
much  the  same  fallacy:  "Accepting  the  rationalistic  hypothesis  of  the  New  Criticism, 
Israel  was  either  a  religious  development,  an  evolution;  or  it  was  a  religious  decadence, 
a  failure.  If  it  was  a  development  up  from  low  beginnings,  then  Moses  is  one  difficulty. 
We  cannot  account  for  him.  If  it  was  a  national  declension  and  failure,  then  what  shall 
wedo  with  Christ  and  his  words.  .  .  .  Our  Bible  lies  before  us.  What  do  we  find  therein? 
Covenant,  law,  Gospel;  priest,  prophet,  Messiah.  These  stand  in  reciprocEil  relation. 
That  relationship  is  not  counter-destructive." 


Historical  Sketch  of  the  Criticism.  8 1 

than  textual  corruptions.  Its  master  of  ceremonies 
throughout  is  the  "  Redactor." 

What  DiUmann  said  of  the  position  of  Wellhausen 
to  the  effect  that  each  of  the  three  leading  documents 
of  the  Pentateuch  had  passed  through  several  editions 
before  being  united  to  its  companion  documents,  that 
it  was  an  "  hypothesis  of  perplexity,"  is  ^  no  less  true 
of  the  scheme  as  a  whole. 

(12)  It  is  charged  upon  the  advocates  of  the  common 
historical  belief  that  their  premise  of  a  divine  revela- 
tion, accredited  by  prophecy  and  miracle,  leaves  them 
no  option.  The  same  may  fairly  be  retorted  against 
those  who  substitute  for  it  the  fixed  premise  of 
a  simply  natural  development.  Its  defenders  are  no 
longer  free.  Their  subsequent  course  of  reasoning  can 
only  be  regarded  as  predetermined  and  compulsory. 

{13)  But  a  theory  which  finds  itself  forced  by  exigen- 
cies peculiar  to  itself  to  deny  that  written  laws  came 
from  Moses,  that  any  considerable  portion  of  the 
Psalter  is  Davidic,  that  the  earlier  prophets  authorita- 
tively rebuked  idol  worship,  that  there  are  allusions  to 
the  ceremonial  law  as  such  in  the  historical  books,  is, 
on  its  face,  radically  at  fault  and  unworthy  of  our 
confidence. 

(14)  The  uncertainty  which  the  methods  of  criticism 
now  under  review  have  already  brought,  and  are  calcu- 
lated to  bring,  upon  the  vital  questions  of  revelation, 
inspiration,  and  the  Old  Testament  reli^on  generally, 
with  which  the  religion  of  the  New  Testament  cen- 
tring in  the  teaching,  death,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ  is  inseparably  connected,  can  only  be  regarded 
by  reflecting  Christian  men  as  a  proof  of  their  falla- 

'  Die  Hiicher  Exodus  u.  Leviticus  (Lcipz.  1880),  p.  viii. :  "Mit  einem  Q'  Q-  Q'',  J' 
J-  J'*,  K'  I'.'-  K'',  vermag  ich  nichts  anzufangeii  und  kann  dariii  Dur  VerlegenheitS" 
hypothcsen  sehea," 


82  TJic  Pentateuch :  Its  Orie^in  mid  Structure. 


<i ' 


ciousness.  To  hold  one's  faith  in  suspense  until  trust- 
worthy results  are  reached  in  this  way  is  to  be  without 
the  benefit  of  necessary  religious  guidance  in  this  life. 

(15)  The  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  agreeing  substan- 
tially with  that  of  the  Jews,  and  not  to  be  dated  much 
later  than  Nehemiah's  time,  is  at  once  a  tangible  and 
an  insuperable  obstacle  to  a  theory  that  would  refer  the 
compilation  and  introduction  of  the  Hexateuch  to  this 
same  period  of  conflict  and  perverse  antipathies.^ 

(16)  It  is  still  too  early  to  decide  what  will  be  the 
final  outcome  of  Egyptian  and  Assyrian  discoveries  in 
their  bearing  on  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch. 
The  parallels  in  the  latter  tongue  to  the  history  in 
Genesis,  though  some  centuries  older  in  their  present 
form  than  the  Books  of  Nehemiah  and  Ezra,  make  no 
pretence  to  being  contemporaneous  records.  They  are 
clearly  copies,  and  like  extant  manuscripts  of  the  New 
Testament  are  valid,  independent  witnesses  for  a  period 
long  anterior  to  themselves.  So  much,  accordingly, 
may  be  safely  inferred  from  the  testimony  of  the  monu- 
ments :  that  not  a  little  of  the  material  contained  in  the 
early  part  of  Genesis,  including  narratives  of  both  the 
leading  documents,  was  in  circulation  long  before  the 
time  of  Moses,  and  not  simply  as  traditional  germs,  but 
in  detailed  form,  in  the  biblical  order  and  with  its 
blending  of  supposed  different  accounts.^ 

^  It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  Samaritan  recension  is  of  earlier  date  than  the 
exile;  although  it  is  impossible  to  prove  that  it  is  not.  It  might  be  even  conceded  that  the 
Samaritans  took  it  bodily  from  the  copy  that  began  to  circulate  at  Jerusalem  after  the 
return  from  the  exile.  But  the  fact  that  it  is  the  Pentatettch  and  not  the  Hexateuch,  and 
that  the  history  of  Joshua  was  subsequently  current  among  them  in  another  form,  is  quite 
sufficient  to  show  that,  already,  at  this  time,  the  "  Law  of  Moses  "  had  attained  to  at  least 
semi-canonical  rank  by  itself  and  was  invested  with  a  peculiar  sanctity. 

^  Lenormant  thinks  the  Chaldaean  narrative  of  the  deluge  is  not  less  than  thirty-five 
hundred  years  old  (^The  Beginnings  0/ History,  p.  392).  Contrary  to  the  view  of  Bickell 
{Zcitschrift  fur  Katholische  Theologie,  1877,  pp.  1^9-131)  and  Abbii  Vigouroux  (Z^a 
Bible  et  les  decouvertes  inodernes,  2d  ed.  i.  pp.  165,  190,  251-254),  however, 
he  maintains  that  the  Chaldaean  record  confirms  "in  a  decisive  manner  the  distinction 


Historical  Skt  tcli  of  tJ:c  Criticism.  83 

List  of  Passages  claimed  by  Wellhausen  to  belong  to 
THE  "Priests'  Code":-^ 

Genesis  i.-ii.  4<^;  v.  (ex.  29);  vi.  9-22;  vii.  ii-viii.  5  (ex.  vii. 
12,  i6c,  17,  22,  23,  viii.  2b),  13,  19;  ix.  1-17,  28,  29;  x.  1-7,  20, 
22,  23,  31,  32;  xi.  10-32  (ex.  29)  ;  xii.  4b,  5;  xiii.  6,  lib,  12;  xvi. 
3,  15,  16;  xvii. ;  xix.  29;  xxi.  2b-5  ;  xxiii. ;  xxv.  7-17  (ex.  lib),  i^^ 
20,  26c ;  xxvi.  34,  35  ;  xxvii.  46-xxviii.  9 ;  xxix.  24,  28b,  29  (?)  ; 
xxxi.  18  (in  part)  ;  xxxv.  9-15  (vs.  9  impure),  22C-29 ;  xxxvi.  6-8, 
40-43;  xxxvii.  I,  2  (partly)  ;  xlvi.  6,  7,  8-27  (?)  ;  xlvii.  5-1 1  (ex. 
6b),  27b,  28;  xlviii.  ■})-']  \  xlix.  28  (?),  29-33;  1.  12,  13. 

Exodus  i.  I,  5,  7  (in  part),  13,  14  (partly)  ;  ii.  23  (in  part),  24, 
25;  vi.  2-vii.  13,  19,  20=1,  21C,  22,  23;  viii.  1-3,  iib-15;  ix.  8-12; 
xi.  9,  10  (certain  expressions);  xii.  1-21,  28,  37a,  40,  41,  43-51  ; 
xiii.  I,  2,  20;  xiv.  I,  2,  4  (partly),  8b,  9  (partly),  10,  15  (partly), 
28  (?)  ;  xvi.  1-3,  9-13=*,  i6b-i8a,  22-26,31-34,  35a;  xvii.  i  (ex.  last 
clause);  xix.  i,  2a;  xxiv.  I5b-i8a;  xxv.  i-xxxi.  17,  18  (Elohistic 
I)ut  doubtful)  ;  xxxiv.  29-32,  33-35  (?  "ein  apokryphisches  Anhang- 
sel ")  ;  xxxv.-xl. 

Leviticus  (including  the  unique  collection  xvii  .-xxvii.). 

Numbers  i.  i-x.  28;  xiii.  i-i7a,  21,  25,  26  (mostly),  32 
(partly)  ;  xiv.  i,  2  (fragments  of  them),  5-7,  10,  26,  27,  28  (last 
two  in  doubt),  34-36 ;  xv. ;  xvi.  i,  2  (partly),  8-1 1,  16-22,  35  ;  xvii.- 
XX.  id,  2,  3b,  6,  12,  22-29;  '^^^-  4^'  1°'  f  I  ('ill  doubtfully)  ;  xxv.  6- 
xxxi.  ;  xxxii.  16,  17  (partly),  18,  19,  24,  28-33;  xxxiii.-xxxvi.  (ex. 
xxxiii.  50-56,  "  lassen  ein  fremdes  Element  in  Q  erkennen"). 

between  the  two  accounts,  Elohist  and  Jehovist,  cast  together  by  the  last  redactor  of  tlie 
Pentateuch.  Taking  each  account  separately  and  parallelizing  them,  the  Chaldaean  nar- 
rative is  found  to  agree  with  each  one  individually,  in  every  step  of  its  course,  and  not 
with  the  result  of  their  union."  But  if  the  Chaldaean  inscription  agree  with  each  one 
individually,  it  certainly  proves  (i)  the  contemporaneousness  of  both  the  accounts  in 
Genesis  at  the  time  when  the  Chalda;an  record  was  made.  And  (2)  it  shows,  conclusively, 
that  if  we  have  two  accounts  of  the  deluge  combined  in  Genesis,  they  may  have  been 
combined  as  far  back  as  the  time  of  Abraham,  since  we  have  an  example  from  about  thai 
period  of  the  story  as  thus  put  together  in  the  Chaldaean  language.  Lenorraant  affirms 
that  the  Chaldaean  account  agrees  with  the  Jehovist  and  Elohist,  respectively,  but  not 
with  the  result  of  their  union.  Does  he  mean  that  it  does  not  harmonize  the  alleged  dis- 
crepancies between  the  two?  But  suppose  there  are  no  such  discrepancies.  It  is  enough 
that  it  gives  in  one  continuous  narrative  what  our  critics  separate  in  Genesis  into  two 
distinct  narratives.  For  example,  if  it  agree  with  the  Jehovist  document  in  the  account  it 
gives  of  the  occasion  for  the  flood  (Gen.  vi.  5,  8),  it  agrees  with  the  Elohist  equally  in 
assigning  dimensions  to  the  ark  (Gen.  vi.  15).  It  makes  its  Hasisatra  sacrifice  after  the 
flood  is  over  as  the  Jehovist  alone  makes  Noah  (Gen.  viii.  20),  and  it  shows  how  its  hero 
was  subsequently  blessed  of  the  gods  as  alone  the  Elohitt  relates  that  Noah  was  blessed  of 
Elohim  (CJen.  ix.  i-ii). 


§4         TJie  Pentateuch :  Its  Origm  and  Stvnctiire. 

Deuteronomy  xxxii.  48-52  (compares  with  Num.  xxvii.  12-23); 
xxxiv.  I  a,  7a  (?),  8,  9. 

Joshua  iv.  19  ("  whether  a  fragment  of  a  once  complete  narra- 
tive very  questionable ")  ;  V.  10-12;  ix.  15c,  17-21;  xiii.  15;  xiv.  5 
(including  xviii.  i,  said  to  belong  before  xiv.  i)  ;  xv.  (except  13-19 
and  some  others)  ;  xvi.  4-8  ;  xvii.  1-4,  7,  9  (partly)  ;  xviii.  11-25  ! 
xix.  (ex.  47,  49,  50,  and  possibly  more,  together  with  enumeration  of 
the  cities)  ;  xx.  (with  additions)  ;  xxi.  1-42 ;  xxii.  9-34.^ 

1  Cf.  Jahrbucher  fur  detitsche  Theologie,  1876,  Band  xxi.  392-450,  531-602.  For 
further  explanation  of  the  supposed  relation  of  PC  to  the  documents  with  which  it  is  asso- 
ciated see  the  beginning  of  the  next  paper.  It  did  not  seem  needful  in  the  present  work  to 
set  forth  in  detail  the  textual  contents  of  JE  and  D.  For  the  purposes  of  our  argument 
they  can  be  inferred  with  sufficient  accuracy  by  subtracting,  in  accordance  with  the  data 
elsewhere  given,  those  of  PC  from  the  text  of  the  Bible  as  we  now  have  it. 


III. 

THE  PROPOSED  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  LAW  TESTED 
IN  ITS  LEADING  PRINCIPLES. 


The  Hexateuch,  as  analyzed  by  Wellhausen  and  the 
class  of  critics  he  represents,  may  be  formulated  as 
follows  :  JE  +  D  +  HG  +  PC  (Q)  +  R.  This  formula 
will  be  found  convenient  for  reference,  as  well  as  to 
present  to  the  eye  the  relative  order  of  the  codes 
according  to  this  system. 

At  the  risk  of  repetition,  it  may  be  well  to  explain 
here,  somewhat  more  in  detail,  this  analysis. 

The  letters  JE  stand  severally  for  a  Jehovist  and  an 
Elohist  document,  the  former  beginning  at  Genesis  ii. 
4^ ;  the  latter  at  Genesis  xx.  These  are  claimed  to  be 
the  oldest  documents  of  the  Bible ;  but  the  question  of 
their  relative  age  is  not  specially  mooted.  The  germ 
of  J  is  the  so-called  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Exodus 
xx.-xxiii.,  xxxiv.),  though,  with  this  exception,  it  is  in 
the  main  an  historical  work.  It  arose,  it  is  said,  in  the 
period  of  the  earlier  Hebrew  kings  and  prophets.  E  is 
a  similar  historical  work  which,  after  circulating  like  its 
companion  document,  separately  for  a  time,  —  according 
to  Wellhausen  each  passed  through  three  editions  in 
this  separate  form,  —  was  united  to  J  by  the  Jehovist, 
who  also  revised  and  edited  to  some  extent.  D  repre- 
sents the  legislative  portions  of  Deuteronomy,  originat- 
ing in  the  eighteenth  year  of  King  Josiah  (b.c.  621), 
the  chapters  preliminary  and  following  being  added  at 


86  The  Pentateuch :  Its  Oi'is!;iii  and  Structure, 


<i ' 


a  considerably  later  period.  HG  (that  is,  Heiligkeits- 
gesets,  law  of  holiness)  is  used  for  chapters  xvii.-xxvi. 
of  Leviticus,  which  were  composed,  it  is  maintained,  at 
about  the  time  of  Ezekiel,  although  not  by  him. 
Q  {quatuor  foederum  liber)  is  the  great  historical  and 
legislative  work  beginning  the  Bible,  and  like  E 
peculiar  in  its  predominant  use  of  Elohim  as  a  name 
for  God,  and  embracing  very  nearly  one  half  of  the 
entire  Hexateuch.  PC  is  the  symbol  for  "  Priests' 
Code,"  the  name  given  to  Q  after  receiving,  from  time 
to  time,  the  various  additions  made  to  it,  up  to  the 
period  of  its  completion  subsequent  to  the  exile.  The 
letter  R  stands  for  Redactor,  the  person  who  combined 
JE  and  D  with  PC.  He  is  assumed  to  have  had  the 
style  of  the  document  last  named,  and  to  have  done  his 
work  wholly  in  its  spirit.  The  Hexateuch,  having  thus 
been  brought  essentially  to  the  form  in  which  it  is 
now  found,  was  published  and  introduced  by  Ezra 
(b,c,  444). 

Each  of  these  letters  or  combination  of  letters,  it  will 
be  seen,  —  except  the  last,  —  represents  a  different 
stage  of  the  legislation  ;  JE  having  for  its  nucleus  the 
Book  of  the  Covenant,  which  is  followed  by  the  Deuter- 
onomic  code,  and  that  in  succession  by  Leviticus  xvii.- 
xxvi.,  and  the  remaining  priestly  legislation  of  the 
middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch, 

The  method  adopted  by  Wellhausen  to  prove  that 
these  collections  of  laws  do  actually  represent  different 
so-called  stratifications,  which  took  form  in  the  widely 
separated  periods  indicated  in  our  note,  is  twofold. 
First,  he  endeavors  to  show  that,  when  compared,  there 
is  evidence  of  a  marked  development  in  these  several 
parts  of  the  legislation  themselves  in  the  direction 
named  :  that  is,  from  JE  toward  PC.      Second,  he  calls 


TJie  Proposed  Analysis  Tested.  87 

attention  to  the  impression  left  by  the  laws  on  the 
historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  — ■  not  excepting 
the  Pentateuch  and  the  Book  of  Joshua, — and  claims 
that  the  history  most  readily  adapts  itself  to  such 
a  theory  of  the  post-Mosaic  development  of  the  codes. 
Under  the  first  head  five  particulars  are  specially  dwelt 
upon:  (i)  the  place  of  worship;  (2)  the  sacrifices; 
(3)  the  feasts ;  (4)  the  priests  and  Levites ;  (5)  the 
provision  made  for  the  support  of  priests  and  Levites. 

The  object  of  the  present  paper  will  be  to  discover,  if 
possible,  what  fair  conclusion  may  be  drawn  from  an 
examination  and  comparison  of  these  several  collections 
of  laws  on  the  points  named.  Is  such  a  theory  of 
development  as  is  proposed  a  necessary  or  legitimate 
outcome  of  a  really  candid  and  critical  investigation } 
Adopting  Wcllhausen's  order,  let  us  consider  the  atti- 
tude of  these  laws  as  it  respects 

(i)  Tlie  Place  of  Worship.  —  The  position  here 
assumed  is  that  there  are  three  successive  steps  in 
the  growth  of  the  idea  and  practice  among  the 
Israelites  of  worshiping  at  one  central  sanctuary, 
and  that  these  three  steps  are  distinctly  marked  off  in 
three  principal  codes  of  the  Pentateuch.  In  JE,  for 
example,  a  plurality  of  altars,  it  is  alleged,  is  freely  per- 
mitted. In  D,  however,  which  represents  the  point  of 
view  of  King  Josiah  who  struck  "the  first  heavy 
blow  "  against  this  practice,  unity  of  worship  is  every- 
where insisted  on.  While  in  PC  such  unity  of  worship 
is  presupposed  as  a  thing  of  the  past,  and  by  means  of 
the  fiction  of  the  tabernacle  referred  to  the  very  earliest 
times.     This  in  brief  is  the  theory. 

As  to  the  question  how  it  fits  the  legislation,  Well- 
hausen,  it  is  noticeable,  instead  of  coming  directly  to 
the  point,  devotes  a  dozen  pages  to  a  summary  of  the 


8S         TJie  PentateiicJi :  Its  Orinn  and  Structure. 


i> ' 


teachings  of  the  historical  books  on  the  subject.  By 
giving  to  exceptions  which  he  there  finds  the  force  of 
established  rules,  misapprehending  and  misapplying 
some  plain  statements  of  fact,  and  wholly  setting  aside 
the  testimony  of  the  author  of  the  Books  of  Kings,  — 
with  whom  he  acknowledges  himself  to  be  in  open  con- 
flict,—  this  critic  is  able  to  affirm  that  this  was  "the 
actual  course  of  the  centralization  of  the  cultus  ;  one 
can  distinguish  these  three  stages."  ^  And  it  is  only 
after  such  a  manipulation  of  the  history,  in  which  Well- 
hausen  is  able  to  find,  previous  to  the  building  of 
Solomon's  temple,  no  trace  of  a  central  sanctuary, 
that  he  makes  his  appeal  to  the  Pentateuch  legislation. 
What,  now,  is  the  bearing  of  this  legislation  on  the 
subject  before  us  ?  Does  it,  in  itself  considered,  justify 
or  encourage  the  hypothesis  of  an  extended  process  of 
development  from  the  custom  of  many  contempora- 
neous altars  to  the  one  sanctuary  ?     After  a  reasonably 

1  Geschichte,  i.  p.  29.  It  can  only  be  regarded,  for  example,  as  a  serious  misapprehen- 
sion of  facts  when  {Geschichte,  i.  p.  18)  in  citing  instances  of  extemporized  places  of 
worship  he  refers  to  the  conduct  of  Saul  as  recorded  in  i  Sam.  xiv.  33-36  (Hebrew  text  as 
throughout)  as  an  instructive  one  of  the  kind.  There  is  not  the  slightest  indication  in  the 
text  that  the  stone  on  which  the  people  slew  the  captured  cattle  was  regarded  by  Saul  as 
an  altar  for  sacrifice  ;  or  that  the  writer  of  the  book  referred  to  it  in  the  words  which 
this  critic  puts  into  his  mouth:  "  That  is  the  first  altar  which  Saul  had  built  to  God." 

Hoffmann  {Magazinfilr  die  Wissenschaft  des  Jtidenthiiins,  1879,  p.  9  f.),  after  call- 
ing attention  to  the  fact  that  as  well  the  Septuagint  as  the  Syriac  version  support 
the  Hebrew  text,  remarks:  "  Danach  wird  also  der  grosse  Stein,  auf  dem  das  Yolk 
geschlachtet,  keineswegs  vom  Berichterstatter  fllr  einen  Altar  gehalten,  sondern  nachdem 
das  Yolk  bereits  das  Yieh  geschlachtet,  baute  Saul,  wahrscheinlich  zum  Andenken  an 
den  errungenen  Sieg  (vgl.  Exod.  17.  15),  daselbst  einen  Altar.  Es  ware  auch  kurios, 
wenn  der  Berichterstatter  vom  dem  Stcine,  den  das  I'olk  zii  Saul  hingewalzt  (v.  33) 
behaupten  woUte:  dies  sei  der  erste  yJjV«r,  den  Saul  gebaut  !  !  Die  Stelle  beweist  nun 
wieder  das  Gegentheil  von  dem,  was  sie  beweisen  soUte.  Saul  ist  nur  darob  entriistet,  das 
Yolk  zur  Erde  geschlachtet  und  mit  dem  Blute  oder  iiber  dem  Blute  gegessen,  und 
befiehlt,  dass  Alle  nebem  ihm  auf  einem  grossen  Steine  schlachten"" 

Cf.  also  Sime,  Kingdom  of  All  Is.,  p.  72. 

Of  the  author  of  the  Books  of  Kings  Wellhausen  says  {ibid.  pp.  20,  21) :  "  Aber  diese 
Betrachtungfwcise  des  Bedeutungs  des  Konigthums  fUr  die  Geschichte  des  Cultus  ist 
nicht  die  des  Verfassers  der  Kbnigsbiicher.  .  .  .  Diese  Auffassimg  nun  ist  ungeschicht- 
lich  und  ubertragt  die  Bedeutung,  die  der  Terapel  kurz  vor  dem  Exil  in  Juda  erlangt  hat^ 
in  die  Zeil  und  in  die  Absicht  seiner  Griindung." 


The  Proposed  Analysis  Tested.  89 

careful  examination  one  is  forced  to  reply  with 
a  decided  negative.  He  will  find,  on  the  contrary, 
each  one  of  the  codes  not  only  implying  unity  of 
worship,  but  even  requiring  it ;  and  that  no  part  of 
the  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch  gives  the  least  color 
to  any  other  practice.  Such  a  scholar  as  Delitzsch 
cannot  have  overlooked  essential  facts,  and  this  is  the 
conclusion  also  to  which  he  has  come  :  "  In  truth,  the 
Deuteronomic  demand  for  unity  of  the  cultus  is  no 
novelty,  but  a  demand  of  the  whole  Torah  in  all  its 
constituent  parts."  ^ 

The  position  taken  by  our  critics  may  be  successfully 
assailed,  and  with  almost  equal  force,  from  two  quar- 
ters. It  is  not  true  that  JE  permits  a  contempora- 
neous plurality  of  altars ;  it  is  not  true  that  PC 
presupposes  unity  of  worship  as  something  already 
established  in  the  history  of  Israel.  If  the  several 
codes,  as  here  divided  and  adjusted,  represent  a 
growth  at  all  in  the  matter,  —  which  we  do  not  believe, 
—  it  is  in  D,  and  not  in  PC,  that  we  find  the  climax. 
In  nearly  a  score  of  instances,  within  half  that  number 
of  chapters,  attention  is  called  to  the  topic,  and  a 
special  emphasis  is  given  by  a  repetition  of  the  same 
peculiar  form  of  words  (Deut.  xii.  5,  et  passim).  And 
what  could  be  more  fitting  in  a  document  professedly 
looking  backward  on  more  than  a  generation  of  trans- 
gression and  lawlessness  covering  in  part  this  very 
ground  (Deut.  xii.  8),  and  looking  forward  to  an  imme- 
diate transition  from  a  life  in  camp  to  the  conquest  and 
occupation  of  the  promised  land  .-^ 

As  it  concerns  PC,  so  far  is  it  from  presupposing,  as 
is  affirmed,  a  central  place  of  worship  as  something 
long   established,    it    makes    scarcely   any   allusion    to 

^  Zcitschri/t  fiir  kircJilichc  XVissenschaft,  etc.  1880,  p.  562. 


90         TJie  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure, 

a  place  of  worship  in  this  particular  aspect  of  the 
matter ;  and  as  it  relates  to  the  holy  land,  with  which 
it  is  supposed  this  code  had  alone  to  do,  it  wholly 
ignores  the  subject.  Even  in  its  law  concerning  the 
Passover,  where,  if  anywhere,  it  might  have  been' 
expected  that  this  point  would  be  emphasized,  it  is 
given  no  observable  prominence.  The  tabernacle 
itself,  about  which  all  this  form  of  the  legislation  may 
be  said  to  gather,  has  for  its  direct  object  in  no  sense 
the  furnishing  of  a  central  point  for  sacrifice.  Its  first 
object,  rather,  as  its  name  "tent  of  meeting"  imports, 
was  to  provide  a  place  for  God  to  meet  his  people.  It 
is  true  that  also  in  this  part  of  the  Mosaic  laws  all  are 
expected,  under  penalty  of  the  loss  of  citizenship,  to 
bring  their  sacrifices  to  this  "  tent  of  meeting  "  (Lev. 
xvii.  8,  9).^  As  long  as  the  wilderness  life  continued, 
this  was  the  only  natural  and  warrantable  course  for  a 
people  who,  instead,  of  the  many  gods  of  the  nations, 
had  one  Lord  (Deut.  vi.  4).  But  iteration  and  empha- 
sis on  this  point  was  left  for  a  sufficient  reason,  as  we 
have  seen,  to  Deuteronomy.  Whatever  culminating 
point  there  may  be,  it  will  be  found  there. 

But  does  not  the  tabernacle,  on  the  possible  hypothe- 
sis that  in  its  fundamental  conception  it  is  a  product  of 
the  post-exilian  period,  whether  one  regard  it  as  a  tent 
of  meeting  or  a  place  for  sacrifice  (that  is,  as  a  sanctuary 
from  the  divine  or  the  human  side),  if  it  be  transferred 

1  Kittel  {Theologische  Stiidi'en  aus  IViirtemberg;  1881,  pp.  41,  42)  has  pointed  out 
the  fact  that  this  very  passage  is  evidence  against  the  position  that  in  PC  unity  of  worship 
is  altogether  presupposed;  and  he  cites  Wellhausen  himself  as  saying  {Geschzchie,  i.  p. 
389),  "Die  brtliche  Einheit  des  Gottesdienstes  wird  hier  noch  gefordert,  nicht  voraus- 
gesetzt."  It  is  true  that  he  considers  the  passage  as  one  that  found  its  way  into  PC 
through  revision;  but  this  postpones  the  difficulty  without  solving  it.  Why  should  a 
reviser,  working  in  the  spirit  of  the  document  he  is  revising,  have  put  in  such  an  inhar- 
monious sentiment?  Kittel  has  also  adduced  the  rebellion  of  Korah  (Num.  xvi.  8-1 1)  as 
further  evidence,  from  whatever  point  of  view  it  may  be  regarded,  that  PC  is  far  enough 
from  having  to  do  simply  with  matters  of  worship  already  brought  to  a  concIiJsioD 
(J.  Q.  P-  3»)- 


The  Proposed  Analysis  Tested.  91 

t 

by  its  fabricators  to  the  Mosaic  age,  in  the  nature  of 
the  case  presuppose  on  their  part  a  centrahzation  of 
the  cultus  in  their  own  time  ?  By  no  means.  The 
most  that  it  could  show,  supposing  it  to  represent  cen- 
trahzation of  worship,  would  be  that  they  wished  to 
have  it  understood  that  this  was  the  form  of  worship 
which  prevailed  in  the  far  past.  And  we  can  have  no 
logical  claim  even  to  that  inference.  As  I  have  already 
shown  in  the  introductory  paper,  on  the  supposition 
of  a  pure  invention  one  has  nothing  substantial  to 
build  upon.  "Ex  nihilo  nihil  fit."  These  facile  inven- 
tors may  have  had  a  dozen  reasons  for  their  course 
unknown  to  us.  It  is  only  by  showing  from  wholly 
independent  and  reliable  sources  what  motives  must 
have  influenced  them,  that  we  have  any  right  to  speak 
with  assurance  of  such  motives. 

How  is  it  then  with  JE .-'  There  is  but  a  single  pas- 
sage in  its  code  on  which  much  reliance  is  placed  to  show 
its  position  in  this  matter  (Ex.  xx.  24),  and  it  reads  as 
follows:  "An  altar  of  earth  thou  shalt  make  unto  me, 
and  shalt  sacrifice  thereon  thy  burnt-offerings  and  thy 
peace-offerings,  thy  sheep,  and  thine  oxen  :  in  every 
place  ^  where  I  record  my  name  I  will  come  unto  thee, 

^  ^o/with  the  article  undoubtedly  conveys  the  idea  of  totality,  but  as  far  as  the  real 
sense  here  is  concerned  it  makes  no  difference  whether  this  phrase  be  rendered,  with  Dill- 
mann  {Com.,  in  loc),  Bunsen's  Bibeliverk,  and  Wellhausen  {Geschichte,  i.  p.  30),  "  in 
every  place,"  or  with  our  common  English  version,  "  in  all  places."  The  meaning  doubt- 
less is  "  in  that  place,  wherever  it  be,"  where  God  should  cause  his  name  to  be  remem- 
bered, there  he  would  receive  and  own  the  offerings  of  his  people.  There  is  a  similar 
collocation  of  words  at  Gen.  xx.  13.  The  really  important  part  of  the  verse,  as  I  have 
said  above,  lies  in  the  words  "  where  I  record  my  name,"  or,  "  cause  my  name  to  be 
remembered."  It  is  of  interest  that  the  Targums  give  this  clause  here  the  sense  of"  cause 
my  name  to  dwell,"  that  is,  they  apparently  identify  the  place  with  the  t.ibernacle  (cf.  Ex. 
xxiv.  16;  XXV.  8;  xxix.  46;  Num.  ix.  17;  Dent.  xii.  i\,fi/>assi)n).  The  Samaritan  Penta- 
teuch, on  the  other  hand,  read,  though  probal)ly  as  a  correction,  for"  in  every  place,"  "  in 
the  place,"  making  the  matter  still  more  definite.  The  objection  of  Wellhausen  to  the 
view  that  the  tabernacle  is  referred  to  is  that  the  altar  here  described  is  not  the  altar  of 
the  tabernacle.  Nor  is  the  tabernacle  yet  in  existence,  it  maybe  replied;  but  when  it 
came  into  existence  it  came  under  this  law  and  included  this  aiiar.    The  objections 


92         The  Pentateicch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

and  I  will  bless  thee."  And  it  may  safely  be  submitted 
to  any  one,  without  discussion,  whether  this  passage, 
taken  by  itself,  encourages  sacrificing  at  many  altars  at 
one  and  the  same  time,  or  gives  to  every  Israelite  dis- 
cretionary powers  to  offer  his  sacrifices  when  and 
where  he  will  ? 

The  vital  point  of  the  verse,  which  has  been  much 
obscured  by  making  an  issue  on  the  phrase  "  in  every 
place,"  is  contained  in  the  words  "where  I  shall  cause 
my  name  to  be  remembered."  This  expression,  while 
not  positively  excluding  the  possibility  that  there  might 
be  more  than  one  authorized  place  of  worship  at  the 
same  time,  can  by  no  means  be  cited  as  giving  legisla- 
tive authority  for  the  establishment  of  a  multitude  of 
contemporaneous  altars.  Such  a  thought  must  be  first 
read  into  the  verse,  in  order  to  be  deduced  from  it.  And 
it  cannot  be  denied  that  it  might  with  at  least  equal 
justice,  in  harmony  with  the  common  and  traditional 
view,  be  understood  as  implying  that  in  the  lapse  of 
time  the  place  of  worship  would  be  often  changed,  but 
that  the  presence  and  blessing  of  God  would  make  any 
place  sacred  for  this  purpose. 

That  this  is,  in  fact,  the  real  meaning  of  the  words 
may  be  amply  proved,  from  a  variety  of  considerations. 

which  Dillmann  {ibid.)  brings  against  this  view,  while  acknowledging  it  to  be  the  ordinary 
one,  are  far  from  convincing.  The  most  important  of  them,  that  since  Jehovah  was 
understood  to  dwell  in  the  tabernacle,  he  could  not  properly  be  spoken  of  as  coming  to  it, 
is  sufficiently  answered  by  a  passage  which  he  himself  cites  (2  Sam.  vii.  6  f),  where  God 
is  represented  as  saying,  "  I  have  not  dwelt  in  a  house  .  .  .  even  unto  this  day,  but  have 
walked  in  a  tent  and  in  a  tabernacle."  And  in  the  following  verse  the  places  are  spoken 
of  in  which  he  had  walked  with  Israel.  Hence  the  meaning  in  our  passage  of  the  "  every 
place"  where  he  should  cause  his  name  to  be  remembered  is  such  places  as  he  should 
come  to  —  not  apart  from,  but  in  connection  with,  the  tabernacle.  One's  confidence  in  the 
view  that  the  passage  at  least  refers  to  one  central,  well-known  altar,  and  not  to  many 
contemporaneous  ones  will  not  be  weakened  by  the  fact  that  it  is  held,  among  others,  by 
such  scholars  as  Hoffmann  {Magazinfur  die  Wissenschaft  des  yudenthums,  1879,  pp. 
17,  i8),  Franz  Delitzsch  (1.  c.  pp.  562,  563),  Strack  (in  Herzog's  E?icyk.  s.v.  "  Penta- 
teuch"), Bredenkamp  {Gesetz  u.  Prophete}i,y^.  129-139),  and  Riehm  {Gesetzgebung 
miosis  im  Lande  Moab^  p.  25  f.). 


The  Proposed  Analysis  Tested.  93 

First,  it  would  be  remarkable,  if  a  plurality  of  altars 
were  meant,  that  the  singular  number  is  used,  and  that 
we  do  not  find  here,  or  anywhere  else  in  this  document, 
the  expression  "  altars  of  God,"  although  the  author  is 
familiar  enough  with  the  many  altars  of  the  heathen 
(Ex.  xxxiv.  13).  The  usage  corresponds,  in  fact,  to  the 
fundamental  conception  of  the  Old  Testament  religion 
as  everywhere  strongly  monotheistic,  as  over  against 
a  radical  tendency  in  another  direction. 

Then,  according  to  Wellhausen,  JE  represents  a 
period  of  Israelitish  history  so  early  that  the  idea  of 
centralizing  the  worship  had  not  yet  found  its  way  into 
the  cultus  ;  and  this  opinion  he  thinks  is  confirmed  by 
our  passage.  But  suppose  that  in  this  very  document 
the  precise  contrary  appears,  shall  not  that  fact 
modify  one's  views  of  this  verse  .''  Such  is  really  the 
case.  Not  only  is  the  matter  of  centralizing  worship 
recognized,  but  enjoined  by  statute.  Others  have 
already  pointed  out  that  the  offering  of  Abraham  on 
the  distant  Moriah  —  a  narrative  assigned  by  our  critics 
to  this  earliest  document  (E^) — was  an  evident  fore- 
shadowing of  the  future  place  of  Israelitish  worship.^ 
And  does  not  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  —  that  is,  the 
depository  of  the  first  covenant  made  with  Israel, 
including  the  decalogue,  and  so  in  conception  indissolu- 
bly  bound  to  the  code  of  JE  —  point  most  conclusively 
in  the  same  direction  t 

But  I  have  said  that  the  matter  was  even  fixed  by 
statute.  How  otherwise  can  we  interpret  the  injunc- 
tion to  Israel  (Ex.  xxiii.  14  ff.  ;  xxxiv.  23)  that  three 
times  in  the  year,  at  the  great  annual  feasts,  all  males 
shall  appear  before  the  Lord  }  It  is  not  possible  that 
the  point  of  view  of  such  a  command  should  be  that  of 

^  Cf.  Delitzsch  in  Riehm's  Handworterbuch,  s.v.  "  Opfer." 


94         The  Pentateuch  :    Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

a  plurality  of  altars.  They  are  excluded  by  the  very 
terms  employed  in  it.  Besides,  it  should  not  be  over- 
looked that  the  theory  of  our  critics  touching  JE  brings 
that  document  into  direct  antagonism  with  D,  The 
former  would  thus  establish  by  law  what  the  latter 
emphatically  prohibits.  And,  so  far  from  attempting 
to  conceal  such  divergence,  pains  are  taken  rather 
by  our  critics  to  display  it,  as  furthering  the  view  of 
their  separate  origin.  But  whenever  they  originated, 
it  is  unquestionable  that  D  sustains  the  most  intimate 
relations  to  JE,  largely  borrowing  from  it  both  the  form 
and  substance  of  its  entire  code.  And  no  one  is  more 
ready  to  acknowledge  this  than  our  critics  themselves.^ 
D  even  quotes  in  its  additions  an  apposite  part  of  the 
very  passage  we  are  now  considering  (Ex.  xx.  25  ;  cf. 
Deut.  xxvii.  5,  6).  How  unlikely,  then,  would  be  the 
supposed  diversity  on  a  point  of  so  much  importance 
as  that  of  the  place  of  worship.  Greater  fulness  and 
explicitness  in  this,  as  in  other  matters,  is  indeed 
called  for  in  D  ;  but  flat  contradictions  or  essential 
change  of  attitude  are  excluded  by  the  very  circum- 
stances of  the  case. 

Noldeke,  also,  has  pointed  out  how  impossible  is  the 
theory  that  makes  the  unity  of  the  cultus  begin  with 
D  and  with  King  Josiah  (b.c.  621).  "If  Hezekiah  [c. 
B.C.  726]  already  to  a  tolerable  degree  had  carried  out 
this  unity  in  Judah,  the  effort  toward  it  must  have 
been  quite  old ;  for  one  cannot  so  easily  have  made  up 
his  mind  to  suppress  violently  old  and  sacred  customs 
if  the  theory  had  not  long  since  demanded  it."  ^ 

(2)  The  Offerings.  —  Wellhausen  introduces  his  chap- 
ter on  the  offerings  with  the  remark  that,  as  among  the 
ancients  generally,  so  among  the  Hebrews,  the  offering 

*  Cf.  W.  Robertson  Smith,  The  Old  Testa7neni,  etc.  p.  431. 
2  Untersuchung zur  Kritih  d.  Alt.  Test.  p.  127  f. 


The  Proposed  Analysis  Tested.  95 

was  the  chief  factor  in  their  cultus  ;  and  that,  as  already 
shown  in  the  matter  of  the  place  of  worship,  so  it 
might  be  regarded  as  probable  also  here  that  one 
would  find  a  historic  development  whose  different 
stages  are  reflected  in  the  Pentateuch.  He  intimates, 
however,  that  the  results  in  the  present  case  may  not 
be  as  satisfactory  as  could  be  desired,  owing  to  the 
fragmentary  nature  of  the  documents.  Still,  judging 
from  the  number  of  instances  brought  forward  in  proof 
of  such  development,  and  the  apparent  confidence  with 
which  they  are  urged,  this  modest  beginning  can  be 
regarded  as  meaning  little  more  than  the  polite  bow 
before  the  address. 

In  examining  these  further  supposed  evidences  of 
growth  in  the  Pentateuch,  it  is  to  be  carefully  borne 
in  mind  that  it  is  not  needful  for  one  holding  the 
ordinary  view  to  show  that  this  alleged  evidence  does 
not  exist,  or  even  that  it  might  not  be  convincing,  pro- 
vided that  certain  necessary  premises  of  Wellhausen 
and  his  co-laborers  respecting  the  several  documents 
were  to  be  admitted  ;  but  only  that  no  such  evidence, 
if  carefully  weighed,  seriously  militates  against  the 
commonly  accepted  position.  The  remark  of  Professor 
Curtiss  1  on  the  difficulty  of  meeting  our  critics  on 
their  own  terms  derives  its  force,  as  he  has  shown, 
entirely  from  the  peculiar  difficulty  of  the  terms  they 
impose.  It  is  really  saying,  "  Let  me  have  the  prem- 
ises, and  you  shall  admit  my  conclusion."  And  if,  for 
the  time  being,  we  adopt  as  a  working-basis  these 
premises  to  test  the  correctness  of  results  derived 
from  them,  it  is  by  no  means  to  be  taken  as  an  aban- 
donment of  positions  hitherto  held. 

The    more    important    specifications    of    Wellhausen 

'  Current  Discussions,  etc.  1883,  p.  35. 


96         The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structtire. 

under  the  present  head  may  be  arranged  as  follows  : 
According  to  JE  the  practice  of  sacrificing  sprung  up 
before  the  time  of  Moses ;  according  to  PC,  it  was 
introduced  by  him.  Both  JE  and  D  represent  the 
offerings  simply  as  festive  meals ;  PC  makes  them 
include,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  the  idea  of  atone- 
ment. That  is  to  say,  the  earlier  documents  know  in 
general  only  of  the  two  kinds  of  offering,  the  burnt 
and  peace  offering ;  the  "  Priests'  Code,"  while  speci- 
fying various  details  of  the  other  offerings,  adds  to  the 
list  the  sin  and  trespass  offering,  of  which,  it  is 
affirmed,  the  Old  Testament,  previous  to  the  time  of 
Ezekiel,  knows  nothing.  The  latest  code  differs, 
further,  in  a  variety  of  minute  particulars,  and  in 
general,  as  over  against  the  to  whom  of  JE,  insists  on 
the  when,  the  ivhere,  the  through  whom,  and  especially 
on  the  hozv,  of  the  sacrifices.  By  means  of  the  gradual 
centralization  of  the  cultus  at  Jerusalem,  this  critic 
would  have  us  understand,  in  short,  that  the  early  and 
natural  connection  of  sacrifices  with  the  ordinary  life 
was  destroyed,  and  they  wholly  lost  their  original 
character. 

Taking  up,  now,  these  general  positions,  and  begin- 
ning with  the  first  particular  mentioned,  it  may  well 
be  asked  if  it  be  a  quite  fair  statement  of  the  case  to 
say  that,  while  JE  represents  the  custom  of  sacrificing 
as  springing  up  before  Moses,  PC  makes  it  begin  with 
him .?  If  it  be  meant,  as  we  suppose,  that  PC,  in  fail- 
ing to  speak  of  sacrificing  as  practised  before  the 
time  of  Moses,  would  reflect  unfavorably  on  its  com- 
panion document  which  gives  instances  of  it,  then  we 
must  characterize  it  as  a  wholly  gratuitous  assumption. 
There  is  nothing  whatever  in  the  letter  or  spirit  of  the 
documents  to  encourage,  or  even  suggest,  it.      Indeed, 


The  Proposed  Analysis  Tested.  97 

what  could  be  more  improbable  than  such  an  omission 
for  this  reason,  on  the  part  of  those  to  whom  the  con- 
tents of  JE  could  not  have  been  unknown?  Or  even, 
if  that  were  not  meant,  but  only  that  the  one  docu- 
ment, because  of  an  independent  point  of  view,  begins 
the  treatment  of  the  subject  with  Moses,  while  the 
other  begins  it  with  Cain  and  Abel  for  the  same 
reason, — then  we  might  well  ask,  in  view  of  the 
acknowledged  fragmentary  nature  of  the  documents, 
what  of  it  ?  And  still  more  forcibly,  on  the  basis  of 
the  ordinary  view,  which  would  find  no  inconsistency  in 
the  circumstance  that  one  part  of  the  same  work  takes 
up  and  develops  a  subject  introduced  in  another, — 
what  of  it  ? 

Besides,  has  not  the  difference  that  is  alleged  to 
exist  between  the  documents  in  this  respect  been,  to 
say  the  least,  somewhat  overdrawn  ?  So  it  appears 
to  us.  The  one  represented  by  JE  cannot  be  said  to 
lay  any  stress  whatever  on  the  matter  of  sacrificing. 
It  is  something  made  wholly  incidental  to  the  history. 
If  there  be  a  divergence,  it  is  reduced  to  a  minimum. 
JE  never  introduces,  for  example,  the  leading  patri- 
archs as  accustomed  to  sacrifice.  Altars,  it  is  true, 
are  mentioned  in  connection  with  them,  but  mostly 
on  occasions  of  simple  prayer. ^ 

Moreover,  were  the  difference  charged  a  matter  of 
fact,  there  would  be  many  ways  of  explaining,  even 
from  our  critics'  own  point  of  view,  more  reasonable 
than  the  one  adopted.  It  might  be  supposed,  as 
already  intimated,  that  the  extant  patriarchal  document 
actually  contained  only  the  few  instances  of  worship 
by  sacrifice  found  in  JE.  Must  PC  then  repeat  these, 
or  formally  recognize  them,  in  order  to  give  such  an 

1  Cf.  Delitzsch,  s.v.  "  Opfer,"  in  Riehm's  Handworterbuck, 


q8         TJie  PentateucJi :    Its  Origin  and  Striicttire. 

appearance  of  harmony  that  no  one  could  possibly 
doubt  it  ?  Or  it  might  be  supposed  that  the  contents 
of  PC  were  designed  in  this  respect  to  supplement 
what  has  been  aptly  and  harmoniously  introduced  by 
JE.  Or,  still  again,  the  two  documents  may  have  been 
left  in  this  somewhat  abrupt  attitude,  as  over  against 
one  another,  in  order  to  distinguish  between  two  really 
different,  though  conterminous,  periods  in  the  history  of 
sacrifice :  the  first  marking  the  fact  that  it  was  the 
spontaneous  product  of  an  inward  need  of  men ;  the 
second,  that  it  had  been  taken  up,  like  some  other  old- 
time  usages,  by  the  Mosaic  legislation,  given  the  form 
and  stamped  with  the  spirit  of  the  religion  of  Jehovah. 
What,  indeed,  could  be  more  in  harmony  than  this  with 
the  general  position  of  our  critics  on  the  matter  of 
development  ?  Any  one  of  these  suppositions  would 
be  quite  sufificient  to  account  for  the  line  of  demarca- 
tion separating  JE  and  PC  as  respects  the  matter  of 
sacrifice,  supposing  it  to  exist ;  and  they  would  be  far 
more  reasonable  and  probable  than  that  of  an  inten- 
tional and  invidious  omission  on  the  part  of  the 
"  Priests'  Code "  or  of  an  omission  implying  even 
a  difference  of  literary  plan. 

But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  we  are  prepared  to  go 
further  and  deny  that,  otherwise  than  in  the  imagina- 
tion of  the  critics,  the  distinction  between  the  docu- 
ments predicated  exists.  Does  PC,  for  example, 
really  represent  that  the  custom  of  sacrificing  is  exclu- 
sively of  Mosaic  origin  .-'  The  contrary  can  certainly 
be  maintained.  It  will  be  allowed  to  cite  here  the  code 
of  laws  represented  by  HG  (Lev.  xvii.-xxvi.),  which, 
originating,  as  it  is  held,  during  the  exile,  should  have 
a  solidarity  of  interest  in  this  respect  with  PC.  At 
Leviticus  xvii.  5   a  custom  of  sacrificing  in  the  open 


T]ie  Proposed  Analysis  Tested.  99 

fields  is  referred  to  in  the  way  of  condemnation,  and 
a  direct  Mosaic  law  given  to  prohibit  it  in  future. 
Does  not  this  presuppose  a  usage  of  sacrificing  that 
was  pre-Mosaic  ?  Besides  PC  itself,  as  Hoffmann  ^  has 
shown,  discriminates  between  those  forms  of  sacrifice 
mentioned  in  JE  and  such  as  it  has  introduced  for  the 
first  time.  In  the  latter  case,  the  occasions  calling 
them  forth  are  carefully  described  ;  in  the  former,  this 
is  omitted,  apparently  as  something  already  understood, 
and  so  unnecessary.  In  the  same  direction,  too,  points 
the  circumstance  that  a  number  of  technical  terms 
seem  to  have  come  over  from  the  pre-Mosaic  usage  in 
sacrificing,  and  still  to  have  held  their  place,  side  by 
side  with  the  Mosaic,  even  when  precisely  similar 
things  are  meant. 

Other  special  points  of  difference  alleged  to  exist 
between  JE  and  PC  will  require  less  attention.  It  is 
claimed,  for  instance,  that  PC  first  introduces  the  sin 
and  trespass  offering  with  their  idea  of  atonement,  and 
that  the  late  origin  of  this  document  may  accordingly  be 
inferred,  when  it  is  considered  that  the  earliest  appear- 
ance of  these  offerings  elsewhere  is  in  the  prophecy  of 
Ezekiel.  That  this  form  of  offering,  we  answer,  as 
afterward  developed  in  the  Mosaic  legislation  and  under 
the  technical  name  of  sin-offering,  was  common  in  the 
patriarchal  period,  no  one  would  care  to  affirm.  That, 
however,  the  original  burnt-offering  included  it  in  its 
fundamental  conception,  there  can  be  no  just  doubt.  As 
it  concerns  the  time  of  its  introduction  as  technically 
a  sin-offering,  it  is  clear  that  Hosea,  near  the  beginning 
of  the  eighth  century  b.c,  mentions  it  as  such,  and 
that  the  author  of  Isaiah  liii.  10  alludes  to  it,  and  that 
it  is  introduced  as  something  well  known  in  the  fortieth 

1  Magazinfur  die  Wissenschaft  des  Judenthums,  1879,  p.  90  ff. 


100       The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

psalm  (vs.  7) — a  psalm  whose  superscription  ascribes 
it  to  David,  and  whose  composition  neither  Hitzig  nor 
Ewald  ventures  to  date  after  about  the  sixth  century 
B.C.  These  instances  are  quite  enough  to  disprove  the 
sweeping  assertion  of  Wellhausen  ^  respecting  the  date 
of  the  sin-offering,  —  not  to  mention  2  Kings  xii,  16, 
where  "  the  trespass-money  and  sin-money  "  most  natu- 
rally refer  to  that  which  was  voluntarily  handed  by  the 
people  to  the  ministering  priest  on  the  occasion  of  such 
sacrifices.2  If  the  reference  in  Kings  be  not  to  the  sin- 
offering,  but  fines  in  money  are  alone  meant,  —  the 
priest  receiving  the  whole  sum,  —  then  our  critics  are 
forced  to  the  unwelcome  conclusion  that  PC  in  its 
legislation  actually  diminishes  by  so  much  the  former 
revenue  of  the  priests. 

But  our  attention  is  invited  to  a  number  of  minor 
particulars  which  are  said  to  show  most  conclusively 
that  the  "  Priests'  Code  "  is  a  much  younger  docu- 
ment than  those  with  which  it  is  associated.  It  is 
asserted,  for  example,  that  previous  to  Jeremiah  (vi.  20) 
the  practice  of  offering  incense,  which  PC  enjoins,  is 
not  alluded  to  in  the  biblical  books.^  Suppose  that  this 
were  true,  it  would  be  a  matter  of  no  great  importance, 
and  might  be  wholly  ascribed  to  accident.  The  wine 
of  the  drink-offering,  too,  fails  to  find  mention  in  the 
earlier  prophets,  excepting  Joel,  who  is  no  longer 
allowed  a  place  among  them  (but  cf.  Ps.  xvi.  4).  And 
the  same  is  true  of  the  oil,  save  in  one  place  in  Micah 
(vi.  7).  The  simple  reason  in  each  case  was  that  there 
was  no  special  occasion  for  mentioning  them.  But  the 
statement  is  not  strictly  true.  Isaiah  (i.  13),  whose 
prophetical  activity  antedated  that  of  Jeremiah  by  a 
full  century,  makes  a  clear  allusion  to  it ;    for  he  can 

1  Geschichte,  i.  p.  77.  2  See  Thenius's  Com.,  ad  he. 

*  See  Wellhausen,  ibid,  i,  pp.  67-69. 


The  Proposed  Analysis  Tested.  loi 

mean  nothing  else   by   the    "  incense "    of    which    he 
speaks  than  the  incense  offered  with  the  meal -offering. 

Then,  it  is  claimed  that  the  flour  used  for  sacrifice  in 
PC  and  the  Chronicles  is  fine  fiour,  while  everywhere 
else  qemach,  or  ordinary  flour,  is  employed.^  But  it 
may  well  be  asked  what  there  is  strange  in  this  ?  The 
latter  word  is  only  twice  introduced  in  such  a  connec- 
tion elsewhere  altogether  (Judges  vi.  19;  i  Sam.  i.  24) ; 
and  how  can  it  be  regarded  as  peculiar  in  the  circum- 
stances that  in  these  cases  the  ordinary  word  for  flour 
should  be  used,  without  qualifying  it,  as  Abraham 
already  does  in  JE  (Gen.  xviii.)  by  adding  that  fine  flour 
is  meant  ?  The  word  for  fine  flour  must  have  been  an 
old  Hebrew  word,  and  might  certainly  have  been  used 
if  found  fit  and  convenient. 

Again,  it  is  claimed  that  according  to  PC  the  flour 
for  sacrifices  was  preferred  in  a  raw  state,  while  the 
earlier  usage,  even  in  the  case  of  burnt-offerings,  was 
first  to  bake  it.^  But  it  is  a  claim  that  has  no  real 
documentary  support.  Outside  of  the  wholly  excep- 
tional instance  of  Gideon's  extemporized  sacrifice 
(Judges  vi.  19  f.)  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  flour 
used  in  connection  with  the  burnt-offering  was  ever 
baked  ;  while  in  the  matter  of  the  meal-offering  the 
practice  in  PC  is  far  from  uniform  (Ex.  xxix.  ;  Lev.  ii, ; 
Ezek.  xlvi.  14).  Wellhausen  was  plainly  misled  by  the 
account  in  Ezek.  xlvi.  20,  confounding  the  portion  eaten 
by  the  priests  with  that  offered  to  the  Lord. 

Of  the  same  nature  is  the  alleged  circumstance  that 
according  to  the  earlier  codes  all  flesh  used  for  sacri- 
fices must  first  be  boiled,  while  according  to  PC  it  was 
to  be  offered  raw.^  There  is  not  a  syllable  enjoining 
such   a   rule   in    the    earlier  codes.     And  the    entirely 

»  Wellhausen,  ibid.  p.  69;  cf.  however,  Num.  v.  15. 

s  Wellhausen,  ibid.  p.  71.  ^  Wellhausen,  ibid.  p.  70. 


I02       The  Pentateuch:  Its  Origin  and  Stricture. 

abnormal  action  of  Gideon,  just  alluded  to,  is  literally 
the  only  clear  example  of  such  a  practice.  It  is  not 
supported  by  the  conduct  of  Eli's  sons  in  i  Sam.  ii. 
13  ff.,  since  there  is  no  proof  that  it  was  their  intention 
to  offer  on  the  altar  boiled  flesh.  And  it  is  just  as 
little  supported  by  a  passage  cited  in  D  (Deut.  xvi.  7 ; 
cf.  Ex.  xii.  9),  as  bdshal  there  means  "  to  roast,"  and  not 
**to  boil"  (cf.  2  Chron.  xxxv.  13),  the  words  "in  water  " 
or  "  in  milk  "  being  always  added  when  it  had  the  latter 
meaning.  Such  cases,  on  the  contrary,  as  that  of 
Manoah  (Judges  xiii.  19  f.)  and  of  Solomon  (i  Kings 
iii.  4;  viii.  5)  show  conclusively  that  the  earlier  codes 
knew  no  such  practice  as  that  which  has  been  imputed 
to  them. 

But  does  it  not  appear  from  i  Sam.  x.  3  f.  that  at 
first  it  was  permitted  to  use  leavened  bread  upon  the 
altar,  while  at  Lev.  ii.  1 1  (PC)  it  is  prohibited  1 1  The 
loaves  here  spoken  of  were  not  for  sacrifice,  as  is  evi- 
dent from  the  disposition  actually  made  of  them  (vs.  4). 

Can  it  not,  at  least,  be  said  that  peace-offerings  were 
the  predominant  form  of  offerings  in  the  ancient  times, 
while  in  PC  one  finds  them  transformed  into  the  whole 
burnt-offering .?  2  Such  a  representation,  we  reply, 
scarcely  answers  to  the  facts  (cf.  Gen.  viii.  20 ;  xxii.  7 ; 
xxxi.  54 ;  xlvi.  i  ;  Job  i.  5  ;  xlii.  8).  It  may  be 
admitted  that  the  whole  burnt-offering  is  made  promi- 
nent in  the  so-called  "  Priests'  Code  "  ;  but  to  attempt 
to  make  out  in  it  a  special  divergence  in  this  respect 
from  the  other  supposed  documents  would  not  repay 
the  effort.  Delitzsch  well  asks  how  we  should  know, 
without  PC,  how  to  discriminate  between  the  two  as 
altar-gifts,  when  David,  for  example,  brings  "burnt- 
offerings "  and  "peace-offerings"  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  25)  at 

1  Ibid.  p.  77.  s  Ibid.  pp.  71-74. 


The  Proposed  Analysis  Tested.  103 

the  threshing-floor  of  Arauna  ?  "And  is  not  the  *fat 
pieces  of  the  thank-offering'  (i  Kings  viii.  64)  the  very- 
expression  which  is  furnished  by  the  Elohistic  ritual 
(Lev.  vi.  5)  ?  "  1 

What  has  already  been  said  is  more  than  sufficient  to 
show  how  unsafe  it  is  to  draw  from  the  circumstances 
of  mere  diversity  in  characteristics  any  inference  con- 
cerning the  late  origin  of  the  so-called  "  Priests'  Code  " 
as  related  to  its  associated  documents.  Undoubtedly, 
if  these  several  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  are  divided  from 
one  another  and  examined  singly,  it  will  be  found  that 
the  one  named  PC  does  insist  more  than  the  others  on 
the  technicalities  of  the  sacrificial  ritual.  But  could  it, 
in  the  nature  of  the  case,  well  have  been  otherwise } 
D  announces  and  carries  out  a  special  programme  for 
itself,  looking  in  quite  another  direction ;  while  JE, 
having  altogether  so  very  little  to  present  in  the  form 
of  legislation,  might  well  be  excused  from  entering  upon 
such  details.  The  whole  Book  of  the  Covenant  makes 
but  five  chapters,  over  against  the  main  contents  of  the 
three  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch.  And  our  critics 
confess  that  they  are  unable  to  find  any  traces  whatever 
of  the  earlier  Jehovistic  work  between  Ex.  xxxiv,  and 
Num.  x.-xxix. 

Undoubtedly,  too,  under  the  influence  of  the  Sinaitic 
legislation,  the  matter  of  sacrifices,  as  we  have  before 
said,  which  originally  may  have  been  an  expression  of 
spontaneous  human  feeling,  took  a  special  and  fixed 
form  as  a  divinely  authorized  institution  for  the  highest 
ends  ;  but  there  is  no  satisfactory  evidence  in  this  form 
itself  that  it  must  have  originated  subsequent  to  the 
time  of  Moses.  The  monuments  of  other  contempo- 
raneous peoples  demonstrate,  rather,  that,  so  far  from 

'  Cf.  s.v.  "  Opfer  "  in  Riehm's  Handworierbufh. 


I04       The  Pentateuch:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

holding  that  the  highly  developed  stage  represented  in 
the  Mosaic  ritual  and  its  singularly  full  and  exact  termi- 
nology is  evidence  of  a  later  period,  we  might  be 
surprised  not  to  find  something  like  them  there.  And 
even  if  we  conclude  that  this  Mosaic  code  is  far  superior 
to  any  of  its  contemporaries,  especially  in  the  unity  of 
its  purpose  and  its  elevated  moral  tone,  that  can  be  no 
reason  for  rejecting  Mosaic  authorship  on  the  part  of 
those  who  accept  the  Bible  as  a  supernatural  revelation. 
For  that  there  are  persons  who  are  unable  to  bring 
themselves  to  believe  in  supernatural  interpositions  in 
human  history  is  no  reason  why  one  should  part  with 
his  commonsense  in  seeking  to  account  for  the  history 
of  Israel. 

(3)  TJie  Feasts.  —  The  annual  feasts  of  the  Jews,  as 
is  well  known,  were  seven  in  number,  of  which  four  fell 
on  the  seventh  month,  and  all  during  the  first  seven 
months  of  the  year.  Three  of  these  were  pilgrimage 
feasts  (those  italicized  below),  in  which  it  was  required 
that  every  male  Israelite  should  appear  with  an  offering 
before  the  Lord,  and  which,  in  harmony  with  this 
custom,  were  commonly  designated  CJiaggim ;  while 
the  others  were  known  as  Moddhini,  or  simply  appointed 
gatherings.  The  cycle  began  with  the  Passover,  which 
was  followed"  immediately  by  the  feast  of  unleavened 
bread ;  and  these  in  succession  by  the  feast  of  weeks, 
the  feast  of  trumpets,  the  day  of  atonement,  and  the 
feast  of  tabernacles,  whose  last  day  closed  the  list  with 
a  solemn  assembly. 

It  is  argued,  now,  with  respect  to  these  feasts,  by  the 
advocates  of   the  analysis  we  have  been    considering,- 
that  they  originated  in  certain  popular  festivals    celc 
brating  the  beginning  and  close  of  the  agricultural  year, 
and  that  the  process  of  transformation  into  historical 


The  Proposed  Analysis  Tested.  105 

institutions  is  clearly  discoverable  in  the  present  Pen- 
tateuch codes.  That  the  feasts,  in  part,  may  be  based 
on  previous  usages  of  the  people  is,  indeed,  not  only 
quite  credible,  but  might  be  shown  to  be,  a  priori, 
probable  from  what  we  know  of  other  Mosaic  institu- 
tions. That  they  appear,  however,  in  any  part  of  the 
legislation  of  the  Pentateuch  in  any  other  form  than  as 
established  ecclesiastical  ordinances  is,  we  will  venture 
to  say,  incapable  of  proof. 

Take,  for  instance,  the  two  associated  feasts  of  the 
Passover  and  of  unleavened  bread,  which,  according  to 
this  theory,  should  be  found  in  JE  and  D  as  the  open- 
ing harvest  festival.  There  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence 
in  these  documents  (cf.  Ex.  xxxiv.  18;  Deut.  xvi.  1-8) 
that  they  had  any  other  origin  or  purpose  than  to  cele- 
brate the  exodus  from  Egypt.  That  is  made  in  both  of 
them  their  sole  occasion.  If  they  had  a  different  origin, 
it  is  carefully  concealed. 

Singularly  enough,  however,  on  the  basis  of  this 
theory,  we  discover  in  immediate  connection  with  the 
rules  for  these  feasts  as  found  in  HG  (Lev.  xxiii.  4-8  ; 
cf.  vs.  9-14)  —  a  document  here  virtually  identical  with 
PC  —  our  first  and  only  allusion  to  a  harvest  ceremony. 
In  this  passage,  to  use  the  language  of  Wellhausen, 
"  the  special  Easter  rite  is  the  presentation  of  a  sheaf 
of  barley." 

But  how  can  this  be  made  to  harmonize  with  the 
development  hypothesis  to  find  the  root  where  the 
bloom  should  be  ;  to  find  in  a  document  which  is 
alleged  to  have  arisen  in  the  time  of  Ezekiel  elements 
one  would  suppose  to  be  out  of  place  anywhere,  except 
in  the  earliest  literature  "i  Let  Wellhausen,  as  one  of 
its  leading  advocates,  himself  explain :  "  One  may 
remind  us,"  he  says,  "  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  true,  that 
this  passage  at  present  belongs  to  PC,     But   the  col- 


io6       The  PentateucJi:  Its  OrisriJi  and  Stnichire, 


i>' 


lection  (Lev.  xvii.-xxvi),  as  is  well  known,  was  simply 
worked  over  and  received  by  it  ;  originally,  however,, 
was  an  independent  corpus,  which  stood  at  the  point  of 
transition  from  D  to  PC,  resembling  now  this  and  now 
that.  And  the  complete  justification  [mark  the  words] 
for  making  use  of  Lev.  xxiii.  9-22  in  this  connection 
appears  in  this,  —  that  only  in  this  way  does  the  rite 
there  described  take  on  life  and  meaning."  ^  But  the 
question  is  not  concerning  making  use  of  Leviticus. 
It  is  a  question  why  Leviticus  alone  makes  use  of  such 
a  ceremony  if  the  ceremony  explains  the  origin  of 
the  festival ! 

Nothing  needs,  however,  to  be  added  to  this  explana- 
tion, except,  perhaps,  to  call  attention  to  a  subsequent 
remark  of  the  same  critic,^  where  he  speaks  of  the  same 
rite  of  Leviticus,  together  with  that  of  the  wave-loaves 
of  the  feast  of  weeks  and  of  the  booths  at  the  feast  of 
tabernacles  —  all  of  which  things  are  totally  ignored  by 
the  two  documents  claimed  to  be  the  oldest  of  the 
Pentateuch  —  as  "petrified  fragments"  of  the  "old 
customs,"  the  faint  traces  which  betray  the  real  sources 
of  the  development.  Indeed,  as  "petrified  fragments" 
of  a  primitive  heathenism  one  would  suppose  them  to 
be  as  much  out  of  place  in  PC  as  Druidical  worship 
would  be  in  St.  Paul's  Cathedral. 

But  there  is  a  marked  divergence  in  the  documents, 
it  is  said,  also  in  their  mode  of  indicating  the  time  of 
celebrating  the  feasts  ;  PC  giving  a  definite  numerical 
date,  while  the  other  two  documents  speak  only  in  the 
most  general  terms  of  the  month  only.  This,  according 
to  Wellhausen,^  points  not  only  to  a  fixed,  uniform 
regulation  of  the  cultus  in  the  former,  but  also  \o  an 
essential  change  of  its  nature.  It  is  true  that  the  dates 
of  the  feasts  are  differently  expressed,  as  it  is  claimed ; 

1  Geschichte,  i.  p.  88,  note.  *  Ibid.  p.  103.  »  md.  p.  104. 


The  Proposed  Analysis  Tested.  107 

but  it  is  not  true  that  they  are  any  the  less  definitely 
indicated  in  the  one  case  than  the  other.  The  Pass- 
over, for  example,  according  to  JE,  was  instituted  on 
going  out  of  Egypt,  and  the  particular  day  is  assumed 
to  be  well  known.  In  like  manner,  in  the  case  of 
the  feast  of  unleavened  bread  (Ex.  xxxiv.  18),  not  only 
is  the  month  mentioned,  but  it  is  implied  that  the 
particular  date  had  been  determined,  and  was  well 
understood  ;  the  original  being  properly  rendered,  with 
Bunsen's  Bibelwerk,  "at  the  time  determined  on  in 
the  month  Abib  "  {in  der  bestimmten  Zeit  des  Aehren- 
monats). 

The  same  may  be  said  of  D.  It  not  only  ordains  the 
celebration  of  the  Passover  on  the  ground  of  the 
deliverance  from  Egypt,  but  calls  special  attention 
(Deut.  xvi.  3)  to  the  day  to  be  observed  as  that  of  their 
coming  forth  ;  it  is  that  which  they  are  to  recall.  So, 
too,  the  date  for  the  observance  of  the  feast  of  weeks  is 
either  assumed  in  the  earlier  documents  to  be  well 
known,  as  in  JE  (Ex.  xxiii.  16  ;  xxxiv.  22),  which  is 
familiar  also  with  both  the  names  that  are  applied  to  it 
— feast  of  weeks  and  feast  of  harvest ;  or  it  is  clearly 
pointed  out,  as  in  D  (Deut.  xvi.  9;  cf.  Lev.  xxiii.  15,  16), 
by  means  of  data  which  must  have  been  sufficiently 
current  or  accessible.  The  reason  why  a  different 
designation  for  the  date  is  employed  in  PC  may  have 
been  a  desire  to  provide  additional  safeguards  against 
the  confusion  that  might  otherwise  have  arisen  from 
the  unsettled  state  of  the  calendar  at  that  period ; 
both  sun  and  moon  years  being  probably  in  use  among 
the  Israelites  already  at  the  time  of  the  exodus.  They 
certainly  could  not  have  been  unknown  to  them.^ 

'Cf.  Hoflrnann,  ibid.  pp.  104,  105;  Dillmann,  "  Ueber  Kalenderwesen  der  Israeliten 
vordem  babylon.  'E.x\\.,"  Monatsckri/t  der  konig.  Acad.  d.  Wissenschaft  zu  Berlin, 
October  27,  1881. 


1 08       The  Pentateuch :  Its  OriHn  and  Structure. 


'i3  ' 


It  is  further  objected  to  the  ordinary  view  of  the 
Pentateuch  codes,  as  it  respects  the  feasts,  that  in  D 
(Deut.  xvi.  4,  8)  the  Passover  is  represented  as  the  first 
day  of  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread,  while  in  PC  it  is 
assigned  to  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month,  a  full 
week  being  afterward  devoted  to  the  connected  feast, 
beginning  with  the  fifteenth.  This  is  supposed  to  indi- 
cate an  earlier  stage  of  the  development. 

The  account  in  Deuteronomy  is,  indeed,  peculiar  in 
apparently  merging  the  observance  of  the  Passover 
with  that  of  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread.  That, 
however,  a  knowledge  of  their  true  relation  to  one 
another  is  presupposed  is  evident  from  the  distinctions 
already  found  in  JE  (cf.  Ex.  xxiii.  18;  xxxiv.  18,  25), 
the  fact  that  both  names  are  discriminatingly  applied 
(vs.  I,  16),  and  the  manner  in  which  the  two  feasts  are 
wrought  together.  From  vs.  4^-7  the  Passover  is 
clearly  referred  to  in  its  narrower  sense ;  while  in  vs.  i 
the  appropriate  day  for  slaying  the  paschal  lamb  is 
assumed  to  be  known  and  to  have  been  properly 
observed.  And  when  in  vs.  4^  it  is  said  that  there 
shall  not  remain  over  till  the  morning  any  of  the  flesh 
that  was  killed  on  the  evening  of  the  first  day,  it  is 
plain  that  the  evening  of  the  fourteenth  is  meant,  and 
not  the  first  day  of  the  following  feast,  for  a  variety  of 
reasons.  This  language  is  directly  borrowed  from  JE 
(Ex.  xxiii.  18;  xxxiv.  25;  cf.  also  Ex.  xii.  6,  10;  Num. 
ix.  12)  in  its  law  of  the  Passover.  It  is  in  closest 
harmony  with  vs.  7^,  where  permission  is  given,  after 
the  celebration  of  the  Passover,  to  return  to  -the 
tents  —  previous,  that  is,  to  the  observance  of  the 
accompanying  feast. 

That  this  cannot  mean  the  morning  after  the  first 
day  of  unleavened  bread  is  obvious  from  the  fact  that 


The  Proposed  Analysis  Tested.  ioQ 

such  a  supposition  would  be  in  direct  contradiction 
with  the  following  verse,  which  calls  for  a  solemn  clos- 
ing assembly  on  the  seventh  day,  as  also  with  another 
requirement  of  this  verse,  that  seven  subsequent  days, 
including  that  of  the  final  assembly,  are  to  be  devoted 
to  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread.  And  what  is  found 
in  vs.  2,  where  sheep  and  cattle  are  spoken  of  as 
victims  for  the  Passover  feast,  offers  no  objection  to 
this  view.  The  name  Passover  is  here  given  to  the 
whole  series  of  feasts,  as  afterward  (v.  i6)  the  name 
Mazzoth  is  applied  to  it  —  a  usage,  moreover,  which 
perpetuated  itself  in  New  Testament  times  (Mark  xiv.  i  ; 
Luke  xxii.  i),  and  is  recognized  by  Josephus,^  who 
speaks  of  "  the  festival  of  the  unleavened  bread,  which 
is  called  pascha  (^a^-xa)."  If  there  were  any  doubt  on 
this  point,  it  would  be  settled  by  the  language  of  vs.  3, 
where  the  command  is  given  to  eat  unleavened  bread 
for  seven  days  in  addition  to  the  Passover  ("there- 
unto"), this  Hebrew  expression  referring  undoubtedly 
to  the  Passover  proper,  as  Riehm  ^  and  Keil  ^  have 
pointed  out,  and  having  no  clear  sense  on  any  other 
supposition. 

Still  further  it  is  asserted  that,  while  D  (in  agree- 
ment with  I  Kings  viii.  66 ;  cf.  Ezek.  xlv.  25)  assigns 
seven  days  to  the  celebration  of  the  feast  of  taber- 
nacles, PC  (2  Chron.  vii.  9  agreeing)  requires  eight. 
But  attention  may  be  called  to  the  brevity  of  treatment 
given  the  subject  in  JE  and  D.  The  former  does  not 
even  mention  the  number  of  days  at  all  (Ex.  xxiii.  16  ; 
xxxiv,  22);  and  D  (Deut.  xvi.  13-15)  devotes  to  the 
matter  but  three  verses,  to  ten  in  Leviticus  (xxiii.)  and 
twenty-seven  in  Numbers  (xxix.).  Marti  has  made  it 
appear  probable  that  the  Deuteronomic  form  of  the  law 

'  Antiij.  xiv.  2.  2;  xvii.  9.  3.  "^  Gesctzgcbutig  Mosis  im  Lande  Moab,  p.  52. 

s  Com.,  in  loco. 


I  lO       TJie  PeiitateucJi :    Its  Oriscin  and  Structure, 


d 


is  based  on  that  in  Leviticus/  and  in  one  of  these 
Levitical  forms  (vs.  42)  nothing  is  said  of  an  eighth 
day.  The  special  object  of  D  in  calling  attention  to 
this  feast,  as  so  often,  seems  to  have  been  to  emphasize 
the  unity  of  the  place  of  worship.  Besides,  this  eighth 
day  did  not,  strictly  speaking,  belong  to  the  feast  of 
the  tabernacles,  but  brought  to  a  close  the  whole  series 
of  yearly  feasts.  And  this,  further,  might  well  serve 
to  account  for  the  circumstance  that  it  is  not  always 
mentioned  in  connection  with  it,  either  in  the  codes  or 
the  history. 

It  is  worthy  of  notice,  also,  that  JE  and  D  make  no 
allusion  to  two  other  feasts  of  the  Jewish  year,  that  of 
trumpets,  and  the  day  of  atonement.  But  can  it  be 
justly  a  source  of  objection  to  the  common  view  of  the 
Pentateuch  legislation  that  each  one  of  its  codes  does 
not  cover  the  precise  ground  of  the  others  respectively } 
Just  as  little,  moreover,  can  this  fact  be  properly 
employed  to  support  the  theory  of  a  later  development 
in  PC  ;  since  the  ground  of  this  difference  may  have 
been  purely  accidental. 

Take,  for  example,  the  feast  of  the  new  moon  or 
trumpets.  What  possible  important  reason  can  there 
have  been,  from  any  point  of  view,  why  notice  should 
have  been  taken  of  it  outside  of  PC  .■*  The  nature  of 
the  feast  precludes  the  conjecture  that  it  is  found  in 
PC,  and  there  alone,  from  dogmatic  considerations. 
And,  on  the  other  hand,  the  feast  of  weeks,  one  of  the 
great  pilgrimage  feasts,  finding  a  place  in  all  the  codes, 
receives  no  notice  whatever  in  the  historical  .books 
before  Chronicles  (2  Chron.  viii.  13).  So,  too,  in  the 
entire  legislative  portions  of  Deuteronomy  there  is  no 
recognition  of  the  observance  of  the  weekly  Sabbath, 

*  yahrbiicherjur  J>rot.  Theologie,  1880,  p.  349. 


TJie  Proposed  Analysis  Tested.  1 1 1 

Could  the  danger  of  drawing  important  conclusions 
respecting  the  existence  of  laws  and  institutions  from 
the  presence  or  absence  of  allusion  to  them  where  we 
imagine  it  should  be  found  be  more  strikingly  ex- 
hibited ?  Because  one  does  not  find  in  the  Epistles 
a  full  reproduction  of  the  Gospels,  shall  that  be  a 
reason,  in  so  far,  for  rejecting  the  Gospels? 

The  day  of  atonement,  however,  it  is  claimed,  is  in 
quite  another  category.  It  most  naturally,  on  dog- 
matic grounds,  has  its  origin  in  the  technical,  priestly 
legislation  of  PC ;  and  that,  too,  in  its  latest  develop- 
ments subsequent  to  the  exile.  Do  not  codes  and  his- 
tory alike  point  to  this  period  for  its  actual  origination  ? 

The  times  of  the  exile  and  some  centuries  later  were, 
indeed,  peculiar  in  many  respects.  But  the  climax  of 
anomalousness  would  be  reached  if  it  were  to  be  sup- 
posed that  a  law  of  this  nature  originated  then,  a  law 
which  has  for  one  of  its  principal  objects  the  cleansing 
of  the  temple  in  every  part,  the  temple  which  either 
still  lay  in  ruins  or  existed  but  as  a  lamentable 
reminder  of  its  former  grandeur.  Moreover,  if  it 
originated  then,  at  what  precise  time  did  it  originate  ? 
When  did  the  spirit  begin  to  work  that  finally  took 
shape  in  this  elaborate  ritual  (Lev.  xvi. ;  xxiii.  26-32 ; 
Num.  xxix.  7-1 1).**  The  Chronicler  makes  no  allusion 
to  its  observance,  and  his  book  carries  us  far  beyond  the 
exile.  If  it  did  not  come  up  until  we  find  some  men- 
tion that  it  was  kept,  then  we  are  borne  on,  too,  beyond 
the  days  of  Ezra  and  Nchemiah,  who  cannot  be  so 
readily  spared  from  the  council  that  projected,  in  times 
subsequent  to  the  exile,  a  scheme  like  this.  In  short, 
the  argument  from  silence  here  overshoots  its  mark. 
The  silence  is  unbroken  in  the  historical  books  of  the 
Old    Testament.      And    there  is    no    evidence   of   its 


1 1 2       The  Pentateuch  :    Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

celebration  till  more  than  a  century  after  the  supposed 
introduction  of  PC  in  the  year  B.C.  444. 

Still  might  we  not  justly  expect  some  allusion  to  it 
in  the  earlier  historical  books  if  it  were  Mosaic? 
There  is  no  more  ground  for  demanding  this  than  there 
would  be  for  demanding  express  mention  of  it  in  the 
post-exilian  literature,  —  especially  by  the  Chronicler, 
if  it  had  its  origin  at  that  period.  That  there  is,  in 
fact,  no  point  of  the  Israelitish  history  previous  to  the 
exile  reviewed  in  the  Bible  which  really  requires  special 
notice  of  it  has  been  sufficiently  shown  by  able  writers 
like  Hamburger,  1  and  most  conclusively  by  Delitzsch.^ 
The  position  which  this  law  holds  in  PC  itself  has  been 
too  much  overlooked.  It  is  found  in  two  instances  in 
connection  with  the  proclamation  of  the  other  feasts 
(Lev.  xxiii. ;  Num.  xxix.),  as  well  as  in  two  others, 
where  the  remaining  ones  are  not  noticed  (Lev.  xvi.  ; 
XXV.  9).  And  Delitzsch  has  shown  ^  that  the  whole 
Torah  is  penetrated  by  its  spirit  and  formally  bound  to 
it  by  minute  references  in  many  passages. 

(4)  T]ie  Priests  aud  Levitcs.  —  The  hypothesis  of  our 
critics  here,  in  harmony  with  their  positions  as  already 
noticed,  is  that  in  the  earliest  periods  of  Israelitish  his- 
tory there  was  no  distinction  between  priests  and  lay- 
men :  any  one  might  officiate  at  the  altar ;  or,  if  there 
were  priests  by  calling,  they  were  to  be  found  only  at 
the  more  important  sanctuaries.  Hence  JE  has  noth- 
ing to  say  of  priests.  It  does  not  put  an  Aaron  beside 
Moses.  In  D,  too,  we  still  find  no  radical  distinction 
made  between  priests  and  Levites ;  every  Levite  is 
eligible  to  the  priesthood.     It  is  only  in  PC  that  the 

1  Real-Encyclop'ddie  fiir  Bibel  uttd  Talmud,  s.71. 

^ZeitscliriftJ'ilrKirchUclie  IVisscnscJiaft,  etc.  pp.  171-183. 

^  Ibid.  p.  180  I.,  and  in  Riehm's  Ilandwiirterbuch  s.v.  "  Versohnungstag,"  where  he 
says:  "  Uebrigens  aber  ist  die  ganze  priesterliche  Gesetzebung  von  Beziehungen  auf  diesen 
GeneralsUhntag  durchflochten." 


The  Proposed  A  nalysis  Tested.  1 1 3 

separation  is  fully  made — where,  moreover,  it  is  repre- 
sented that  the  priests  were  never  anything  else  than 
sons  of  Aaron.  This  document  even  goes  so  far  as  to 
put  at  the  head  of  this  caste  of  priests  —  contrary  to 
the  whole  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament  elsewhere  —  a 
high-priest  of  such  prominence  and  power  that  the 
person  of  a  theocratic  king  would  be  wholly  over- 
shadowed beside  him. 

It  must  be  said,  now,  in  looking  at  the  documents, 
that  the  statements  concerning  JE  are  but  partially 
correct.  The  Aaronic  priesthood  as  such  does  not  yet 
appear.  And  why  should  it  ?  No  one  holds  to  its 
existence  before  the  time  of  Moses  and  Aaron ;  and 
the  sparse  fragments  of  presumed  Mosaic  legislation 
found  in  this  document  leave  no  sufficient  place  for  its 
introduction.  It  cannot  be  said  that  the  manner  of 
their  introduction  into  the  history  when  it  comes  does 
not  harmonize  to  the  fullest  extent  with  the  statements 
of  the  Pentateuch  concerning  the  origin  of  the  priest- 
hood. The  pure  artificialty  of  the  scheme,  claimed  by 
Wellhausen,  and  to  be  expected  on  his  theory,  does  not 
appear.^ 

That  the  idea  of  priests  is  not  foreign  to  this  docu- 
ment is  clear  from  Gen.  xlvii.  22.  In  Ex.  xix.  22,  24, 
too,  the  presence  of  priests  is  assumed  during  the 
giving  of  the  covenant.  And  from  what  other  class  is 
it  so  likely  that  the  numerous  magistrates  here  found 
were  drawn  (cf.  Ex.  xxi.  22  ;  xxii.  8  ;  and  especially  with 
xxi.  6  cf.  Dcut.  XV.  17;  xvii.  9;  xix.  17)  ?  So  in  Joshua, 
a  passage  admitted  to  belong  to  JE,  we  find  a  company 
of  priests  bearing  the  ark  of  God  across  the  Jordan. 
Nor  is  the  matter  left  to  occasional  references  even 
here.     As  we  have  already  seen,  the  idea  of  a  central 

>  Ibid.  p.  228. 


114        The  Pcjitatetich:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

sanctuary  already  at  home  in  it,  is  inseparable  from  the 
legislation  concerning  the  three  great  annual  feasts. 
Are  the  feasts,  indeed,  any  way  practicable  without  the 
sanctuary,  or  the  sanctuary  without  an  established 
priesthood    and  a  law  of    sacrifice  ? 

As  it  concerns  D,  the  hypothesis  proposed  can  only 
be  adjusted  with  even  greater  violence  to  the  facts.  It 
is  declared,  for  instance,  that  it  recognizes  no  distinc- 
tion between  priests  and  Levites,  and  support  is 
claimed  for  the  position  from  the  uniform  title  of  the 
former  in  Deuteronomy,  namely,  "  Levitical  priests." 
But  no  one  will  deny  that  this  usage  harmonizes  admir- 
ably with  the  supposed  descent  of  the  priests,  and  as  a 
designation  is  not  without  example  in  the  very  latest 
books  of  the  Old  Testament,  even  such  as  are  sup- 
posed to  be  saturated  with  the  spirit  of  PC  (Jer.  xxxiii. 
1 8,  21  ;  Isa.  Ixvi.  21  ;  2  Chron.  v.  5  ;  xxiii.  18  ;  xxx.  27). 
Moreover,  if  we  look  at  one  of  these  passages  in  D 
(Deut.  xviii.  1-8)  we  shall  find  that  the  distinction 
between  these  two  classes,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  is 
fairly  indicated  even  here.  When  (vs.  i)  "the  priests, 
the  Levites,  the  whole  tribe  of  Levi "  are  spoken  of, 
why  the  qualifying  phrase  if  they  are  understood  to 
mean  one  and  the  same  class  .''  Again  (vs.  2),  it  is  said 
of  these  two  classes,  embracing  the  whole  tribe  6f 
Levi,  that  the  Lord  is  their  inheritance,  as  he  had  said 
unto  them.  I  have  already  shown  elsewhere  that  this 
is  a  direct  citation  of  Num.  xviii.  20,  23,  and  it  is  to  be 
particularly  noted  now  that  the  passage  in  this  its  orig- 
inal form  is  applicable,  as  here  applied,  to  both  priests 
and  Levites.  And  it  will  be  observed  further,  in  this 
passage  of  Deuteronomy,  that  from  vs.  3-5  the  priest 
is  plainly  distinguished  from  his  tribal  brother  the 
Levite,  being  spoken  of  by  himself ;  while  in  vs.  6-Z 


The  Proposed  Analysis  Tested.  I15 

the  case  is  reversed.  This  is  made  certain  by  the  fact 
that  their  diverse  maintenance  is  directly  referred  to 
(with  vs.  3,  4  cf.  vs.  8  and  Num.  xviii.  21-24).  And  in 
the  moving  picture  of  a  Levite,  who  had  been  engaged 
apparently  in  some  other  service  in  the  land,  but  whose 
heart  now  yearns  for  the  service  of  the  central  sanctu- 
ary of  his  people,- — -besides  which  no  other  is  recog- 
nized in  this  book,  ^ — -every  feature  of  the  situation, 
especially  the  command  to  extend  sympathy  and  help 
to  him,  speaks  of  a  difference  in  station.  When  it  is 
said  that  he  is  to  be  permitted  to  serve  there,  such 
service  is  expressly  limited  to  that  of  his  brethren  the 
Levites,  like  portion  with  whom  also — understood  to 
be  established  by  statute  —  he  is  to  have.  Could  all 
who  serve  at  this  sanctuary,  or  even  the  great  propor- 
tion, be  priests  .■*  It  is  impossible.  Even  if  the  author 
of  Deuteronomy  had  made  no  distinction,  we  should  be 
obliged  to  make  it  in  our  own  minds. 

But  are  not  the  priests  in  D  (Deut.  x.  8  ;  cf.  xxxi.  9) 
understood  to  be  the  proper  persons  to  bear  the  ark  of 
the  covenant,  while  in  the  legislation  of  PC  (Num.  iii. 
31  ;  iv.  15  ;  vii.  9;  cf.  i  Chron.  xv.  15)  it  is  made  the  sole 
duty  of  the  Levites  t  This  is  hardly  a  fair  statement 
of  the  case.  In  the  legislation  of  PC  it  is  nowhere 
said  that  the  priests  sJiall  not  bear  the  ark.  On  the 
other  hand,  we  do  not  learn  from  D  that  they  always 
have  this  service  to  perform  (Deut.  xxxi.  25).  The 
truth  established  alike  by  all  phases  of  the  legislation 
and  by  the  history  (see  i  Sam.  vi.  1 5  ;  2  Sam.  vi.  13; 
I  Kings  viii.  6 ;  2  Chron.  v.  4,  5,  7)  is,  that  while  this 
was  ordinarily  made  the  duty  of  the  Levites,  it  was 
also  not  considered  out  of  character  for  the  priests  on 
special  occasions  to  do  it ;  nay,  wholly  comported  with 
their  position  when,  from  being  a  task,  it  became  for 
any  reason  a  mark  of  distinction  and  honor. 


1 1 6        TJie  Pentatcjich:  Its  Orioin  and  Structure, 


i3  ' 


It  cannot  be  denied,  however,  that  there  is  in  D  a 
marked  obscuration  of  the  distinction  between  priests 
and  Levites.  The  name  given  to  the  former  is  not 
that  which  prevails  in  HG,  —  "the  priests," — -and 
especially  not  that  most  common  in  PC  —  "the  priests, 
the  sons  of  Aaron,"  or  "Aaron  and  his  sons,"  the 
fact  of  their  priestly  office  being  understood.  They 
are,  indeed,  sometimes  named  "  priests "  in  Deuter- 
onomy, but  in  no  instance  is  their  descent  from  Aaron 
indicated.  In  a  majority  of  instances,  on  the  other 
hand,  their  origin  from  Levi  is  emphasized  (Deut.  xvii. 
9,  1 8 ;  xviii,  i  ;  xxi.  5  ;  xxiv.  8 ;  xxvii,  9 ;  xxxi,  9). 
And  this  usage  perpetuates  itself  to  a  considerable 
extent  in  the  subsequent  literature  (Josh.  iii.  3  ;  viii. 
33;  Jer.  xxxiii.  18,  21;  Isa.  Ixvi.  21),  even  in  works 
which  in  other  parts  show  that  they  are  well  aware  of 
the  distinction  (Ezek.  xliii.  19;  xliv.  15).  How  is  this 
undeniable  and  most  singular  fact  to  be  accounted  for  ? 

As  it  seems  to  us,  the  peculiar  circumstances  under 
which  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  professes  to  have 
been  produced  have  been  too  much  overlooked.  While 
Aaron  was  still  alive  and  stood  with  Moses  at  the  head 
of  the  Israelitish  community,  while  the  tribe  of  Levi 
still  remained  in  the  wilderness  and  stood  very  much 
on  a  level  with  the  other  tribes  as  it  respects  both 
privileges  and  hardships,  there  could  be  no  special 
occasion  for  making  the  distinction  between  family 
and  tribe  any  less  marked  than  it  appears  in  the 
Levitical  law.  But  on  their  entrance  into  Canaan, 
when  the  matter  of  conquest  and  the  division  of  the 
land  between  the  tribes  would  be  uppermost,  the  cir- 
cumstances were  entirely  changed.  One  whole  tribe, 
not  a  single  family  only,  was  to  be  excluded  from  that 
division.       How  might  they  be  expected  to  feel  when 


TJie  Proposed  Analysis  Tested.  117 

they  actually  confronted  the  fact  ?  Because  they  were 
Levites,  that  did  not  make  them  any  the  less  men,  or 
any  the  less  tenacious  than  others  of  their  tribal  rights. 
Already  in  the  experiences  of  the  wilderness,  notwith- 
standing the  cloud  that  hangs  over  those  experiences, 
we  have  evidence  that  these  whilom  slaves  of  Egypt 
cherish  the  ambitions  that  aspire  to  place  and  power. 
And  the  history  of  the  period  of  the  conquest,  with 
.  the  centuries  immediately  succeeding,  suffices  to  show 
that  tribal  jealousy  was  a  factor  that  no  judicious 
leader  of    Israel  could  afford  to  overlook. 

This  was  no  time,  consequently,  when  the  people  were 
standing  on  the  margin  of  the  promised  land,  and  two 
and  a  half  tribes  had  already  been  apportioned  their 
inheritance,  for  a  man  like  Moses  to  overlook  the 
particularly  trying  position  of  his  own  tribe  of  Levi. 
Was  it  not  natural  that  he  should  seek  in  every  way  to 
make  easier  for  them  what  was  hard  enough  at  best,  to 
be  characterized  as  a  really  sublime  act  of  self-denial  >. 

When,  in  fact,  from  that  day  to  this,  has  a  genuine 
service  of  the  altar  been  anything  else }  It  might  be 
said  that  a  mere  title,  the  raising  of  their  tribal  name 
into  prominence  and  honor  could  have  weighed  but 
little  with  them.  But  it  is  on  such  trifles  as  this  that 
great  affairs  have  turned  in  history.  That  the  priestly 
class  of  the  Israelitish  people  should  cease  to  bear  the 
title  "sons  of  Aaron,"  and  be  hailed  as  "sons  of  Levi," 
and  the  whole  tribe  be  lifted  bodily,  as  it  were,  by  the 
honorable  positions  assigned  and  the  kindly  mention 
everywhere  made  of  them  in  the  closing  words  of  the 
great  lawgiver  of  Sinai,  —  that  could  have  been  no  trifle 
among  a  people  such  as  came  up  out  of  Egypt,  where 
to  be  a  priest  was  to  stand  beside  the  king  himself. 

But  a  special  evidence  of  a  later  period  is  said  to  be 


1 1 8       The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Orip'in  and  Structure, 


'i>' 


found  in  the  position  assigned  in  PC  to  the  high-priest. 
Wellhausen  sees  in  this  personage  the  climax  of  many 
centuries  of  development  in  the  priesthood,  and  a  most 
exaggerated  climax.  The  figure  he  makes  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch, it  is  claimed,  is  a  wholly  disproportionate  one, 
and  that  to  put  him  back  into  the  age  of  Moses  would 
be  the  grossest  of  anachronisms.^  It  should  be 
observed,  however,  at  the  outset,  that  the  figure  which 
this  critic  represents  as  that  of  the  high-priest,  is,  in 
no  small  degree,  one  created  by  his  own  imagination ; 
and  his  way  of  interpreting  the  history  may  be  inferred 
from  a  single  example.  He  says  of  Samuel,  whom  he 
calls  an  Ephraimite,  that  he  slept  every  night  in 
discharge  of  the  duties  of  his  office  beside  the  ark  of 
the  Lord  to  which,  according  to  Lev.  xvi.,  the  high- 
priest  was  allowed  to  enter  but  once  a  year. 

Being  an  Ephraimite,  as  should  be  well  known,  was 
no  hindrance  to  one's  being  also  a  Levite  (Judges,  xvii. 
7 ;  cf.  I  Chron.  vi.  7-13,  and  Curtiss's  note  on  p.  95  of 
Lcvitical  Priests),  which  Samuel  in  all  probability  was. 
But  that  he  slept  in  the  most  holy  place  is  not  affirmed 
in  the  text  (i  Sam.  iii.  3)  ;  it  says  simply  that  he  slept 
in  "  the  temple  of  the  Lord  where  [of  course]  the  ark 
of  God  was." 

Wellhausen  assumes,  further,  that  the  title  high- 
priest  is  of  late  origin,  and  seeks  to  create  the  impres- 
sion that  its  presence  in  PC  is  as  noticeable  as  its 
absence  from  the  historical  books.  Yet  this  title  is 
found  but  twice  altogether  in  PC  (Num.  xxxv,  25,  28), 
and  once  in  HG  (Lev.  xxi.  10),  and  the  usage  in  the 
history  is  precisely  similar,  the  two  titles  being  em- 
ployed interchangeably,  the  simpler  one,  however, 
largely  preponderating  even  in  the  Books  of  Chronicles, 
Ezra,  and  Nehemiah. 

1  Ibid.  p.  153  f. 


The  Proposed  Analysis  Tested.  119 

It  is  alleged,  too,  that  in  PC  the  high-priest  appears 
arrayed  in  royal  purple  and  diadem,  and  standing  at 
the  head  of  a  compact  ecclesiastical  hierocracy,  which 
shows  a  total  transformation  of  the  nature  of  the  office 
as  set  forth  in  Jewish  history.  Here  again  our  critic's 
theory  has  sorely  misled  him.  The  royal  purple  is 
indicated  by  quite  a  different  word  from  the  one  em- 
ployed in  the  description  of  the  high-priest's  robe,  as 
has  been  pointed  out  by  Hoffmann,  Delitzsch,  and 
others ;  and  the  only  diadem  of  this  official  was 
a  simple  turban  of  white,  which  formed  the  covering 
for  his  head  in  the  earliest  and  latest  periods  alike 
(cf.  Lev.  xvi.  4  ;  Ex.  xxviii.  31  ;  xxxix.  22). 

In  short,  a  single  fact  is  sufficient  to  show  how  com- 
pletely all  historical  ground  fails  for  regarding  the  high- 
priest  of  PC  as  a  post-exilian  creation.  It  is  enjoined 
in  this  document  that  the  high-priest  shall  be  anointed 
on  entering  upon  his  office,  and  the  history  corroborates 
the  employment  of  the  rite  (Ex.  xxviii.  41  ;  xxx.  30 ; 
Lev.  iv.  3,  5,  16;  vii.  36;  x.  7 ;  xxi.  12).  Yet  this  also 
Wellhausen  ^  regards  as  a  novelty  of  the  exile.  "  He 
receives,"  he  says,  "  on  his  induction  into  office  the 
anointing,  like  a  king,  and  is  called  accordingly  'the 
anointed  high-priest.' "  But  if  this  procedure  be,  as  is 
supposed,  a  product  of  this  late  period,  how  does  it 
happen  that  it  occurs  in  no  single  case  as  a  usage  in  it .'' 
Even  as  early  as  Zechariah  iii.  we  find  the  high-priest 
installed  without  ceremony.  How  is  it  possible  to  sup- 
pose that  the  subtle  hierocrats  of  this  age  made  some- 
thing found  by  themselves  to  be  unnecessary  or 
impracticable  so  imposing  a  feature  of  their  ritual }  It 
is  probable  that  one  principal  reason  why  this  earlier 
custom   was    not    continued    after    the    return     from 

1  Ibid,  p.  154. 


1 20        TIic  Pentateuch :  Its  Orio-in  and  Strncturc, 


i>' 


Babylon  was  an  uncertainty  as  to  the  method  of 
compounding  the  anointing  oil  or  the  proper  solemniza- 
tion of  the  rite.^ 

When,  in  fact,  we  look  more  closely  at  the  historic 
position  of  the  priesthood,  including  the  high-priest,  as 
reflected  in  the  literature  of  the  exile,  we  see  in  how 
many  important  respects  it  refuses  to  yield  us  the  form 
demanded  by  the  code  supposed  to  be  the  offspring  of 
this  very  period.  It  is  something  less,  but  it  is  also 
something  more.  And  it  would  have  been  more  in 
keeping  with  their  professed  aim,  if  our  critics  — 
instead  of  questioning  the  prophetical  books  so  minutely, 
and  turning  not  only  the  infrequent  utterances  of  the 
Hebrew  seers  on  these  topics,  but  their  very  silence, 
into  proofs  of  the  non-existence  of  a  large  part  of  the 
Pentateuch  in  their  time  —  had  given  more  attention 
to  the  Books  of  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  the  Chronicles, 
where,  if  anywhere,  this  strange  theory  should  find 
positive  support. 

Why,  for  example,  has  it  been  overlooked  that  sub- 
sequent to  the  time  of  King  Josiah  the  historical  books 
recognize  a  sort  of  high-priest  of  secondary  rank,  of 
which  PC  knows  absolutely  nothing  (cf.  2  Kings  xxv. 
i8;  Jer.  Hi.  24;  2  Chron.  xxxi.  13;  Neh.  xi.  11).  Some- 
times he  is  called  "the  second  priest,"  and  again  "the 
ruler."  The  Talmud  describes  his  office  as  that  of  a 
"leader  of  the  priests,"  his  ordinary  business  being  to 
assist  the  high-priest,  and  in  case  of  his  disability  to 
represent  him  on  the  day  of  atonement.  Is  it  possible 
that  an  office  of  this  character  should  have  been  over- 
looked in  a  code  of  the  nature  of  PC,  if  it  came  into 
existence  to  any  considerable  extent  at  or  after  the 
time  of  the  exile  '\ 

'  a  Ex  XXX   22-33  and  Delitzsch,  Zeitschrift,  etc.  p.  337. 


TJie  Proposed  Analysis  Tested.  121 

Again,  the  Books  of  Chronicles  are  deemed  the 
clearest  historical  mirror  of  the  "Priests'  Code."  Ac- 
cordingly we  might  expect,  at  least,  an  adumbration  of 
its  main  features.  Why,  then,  in  so  characteristic  a 
matter  as  its  account  of  the  organization  of  the  service 
of  the  Levites,  do  they  take  scarcely  any  account  of 
the  code  (r  Chron.  xvi.,  xviii.,  xxiv.,  xxvii.)  ?  The  whole 
treatment  of  the  temple  music  is  confined  to  the  history, 
not  a  word  in  the  code,  excepting  only  what  is  said  of 
the  trumpets  of  the  priests  (Num.  x.  i-io).  To  know 
how  important  a  matter  this  service  was  regarded,  and 
to  what  dimensions  it  grew,  with  its  thousands  of  per- 
formers and  its  leaders,  a  Heman,  an  Asaph,  and  a 
Jeduthun  standing  alongside  of  David  himself  in  the 
honor  of  a  conspicuous  place  in  the  Psalter,  one  must 
refer  to  the  Chronicler  and  to  him  alone. 

Here,  too,  we  make  the  discovery  of  new  offices  and 
titles  for  the  Levites  :  "door-waiters"  (i  Chron.  xv.  23), 
"trustees"  of  sacred  funds  (Neh.  xii.  44),  "  secretaries  " 
in  swarms  (2  Chron.  xxxiv.  1 3),  the  so-called  "  servants 
of  the  priests  "  in  numerous  classes  (cf.  2  Chron.  viii. 
14  f.).  Most  of  the  leading  kings  of  Judah,  in  fact, 
after  Solomon's  reign  either  renewed  the  innovations 
which  he  and  his  father  had  made,  or  introduced  other 
changes  in  the  arrangements  of  the  temple  to  suit  their 
times.  And  among  the  Levites  who  are  found  return- 
ing after  the  exile  are  still  other  classes  (Ezra  ii.  55,  58  ; 
viii.  20),  of  which  the  previous  history  gives  no  account. 
Among  these  one  bears  a  name  which  well  serves  to 
show  how  wide  a  period  actually  stretches  between  the 
origin  of  the  Levitical  code  and  the  times  we  are  con- 
sidering. In  that  code  the  Levites,  as  over  against  tlio 
priests,  receive  the  title  "  Ncthunim  "  (Num.  iii.  9;  viii. 
1 6,   19 ;  xviii.  6),  while  here  they  are  termed  "  Nethi- 


122        TJie  Pentateuch:  Its  OriHn  and  Structure. 


i>' 


nim."  How  is  this  abrujDt  change  in  usage  to  be  ex- 
plained on  the  hypothesis  of  a  common  chronological 
origin  ? 

A  still  more  surprising  incongruity,  also,  may  be 
pointed  out.^  It  is  well  known  that  the  relative  number 
of  Levites  returning  from  the  captivity  was  very  small, 
in  the  first  instance  but  one  twelfth  the  number  of  the 
priests ;  and  in  the  second,  even  less.  It  is  matter  of 
tradition,  which  is  fully  supported  by  the  later  history,^ 
that  in  order  to  punish  this  defection  Ezra  withdrew 
from  them  the  stipulated  tithe,  transferring  it  to  the 
priests.  But  if  this  be  so,  how  is  it  that  the  fact  is  not 
recognized  in  the  legislation  of  PC  .''  We  find  the  law 
of  tithes  given  in  D,  not  only  in  full  force,  but  put,  it 
may  be  said,  in  even  a  stronger  form  (Num.  xviii.  21, 
24),  the  Levites  being  no  longer  obliged  to  share  their 
portion  with  others,  but  enjoying  it  exclusively  by 
themselves.^ 

^  Cf.  Delitzsch,  s.v.  "  Leviten  "  in  Riehm's  Hand^vorterbuch. 

'  Josephus,  Aiitiq.  iv.  4.  4;  xx.  8.  8;   Heb.  vii.  5. 

^  Cf.  Watson,  The  Laiu  and  ike  Prophets,  p.  84  f. :  "  The  promotion  and  enforcement 
of  God's  orderly  worship,  and  of  his  worship  alone,  the  authors  [of  PC  in  the  exile]  seem 
utterly  to  miss  .  .  .  here.  For  orderly  worship,  a  carefully  arranged  code  of  laws  was 
necessary.  The  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  are  anything  but  this.  You  have  laws  intermixed 
with  the  history,  laws  repeated,  laws  inserted,  apparently  as  they  were  given  by  God, 
or  as  the  need  arose.  In  its  lack  of  arrangement,  it  is  just  the  book  which  Moses 
might  have  been  supposed  to  write  during  the  desert  wanderings,  when  he  had  to  bear  the 
burden  of  the  people  alone.  But  Ezra  —  to  take  the  sacerdotal  legislation  only,  of  which 
he  is  said  to  be  the  author — -wanted  a  working  code  for  certain  definite  purposes.  It  is 
strange  he  could  not  have  contrived  something  better.  When  we  examine  his  work,  we 
find  he  has  been  more  anxious  to  give  his  laws  and  precepts  an  antique  form  than  to  make 
them  practical,  working  laws.  He  stamps  the  mark  of  the  wilderness  so  deeply  on  his 
laws  that  they  are  often,  without  adaptation,  unfit  for  use  in  the  Promised  Land.  He 
seems  to  study  confusion.  He  mixes  the  history  which  illustrates  his  law  and  the  laws 
which  enforce  the  teaching  of  his  history.  Considering  his  circumstances  and  his  very 
practical  purpose,  we  can  find  no  excuse  for  him;  unless,  indeed,  we  hold  that  his  object 
was  to  forge  a  book  which  would  completely  deceive,  rather  than  a  law  which  would  really 
work." 

"And  yet  Ezra  is  not  a  clumsy  workman;  he  is  a  consummate  artist.  He  is  able  to 
invent  narratives  which  presuppose  his  laws,  and  to  contrive  coincidences  which  appear  to 
be  undesigned.  Take  the  narrative  of  Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram,  as  an  instance.  Here 
he  is  inventing  a  narrative  to  enforce  his  law  by  which  the  sons  of  Aaron  are  distinguished 


The  Proposed  Analysis  Tested.  123 

(5)  Maintenance  of  Priests  and  Levites.  —  It  is  held, 
also,  that  the  codes  arrange  themselves  in  chronological 
order  from  JE  to  PC,  as  it  respects  the  support 
accorded  to  the  priests  and  Levites  severally.  Origi- 
nally, it  is  claimed,  the  sacrifices  were  occasions  for 
sacred  meals,  to  which  the  priests,  if  there  were  any, 
were  invited.  But  it  was  wholly  a  matter  of  courtesy, 
any  claims  they  made  for  services  being  satisfied  by  the 
proprietors  of  the  respective  altars  in  some  way  which 
might  be  agreed  upon.  The  primitive  literature  repre- 
sented by  JE  reflects  this  state  of  things.  But  in  D, 
already,  the  priesthood  is  found  better  supported, 
certain  parts  of  the  animal  sacrificed  being  by  statute 
allowed  them ;  while  in  PC  the  acme  is  reached,  the 
demand  of  the  priesthood  having  become  at  this  date 
something  enormous.  "  It  is  incredible,"  says  Well- 
hausen,^  "  all  that,  in  the  end,  must  be  given  up  to 
them.  What  originally  stood  side  by  side  is  heaped 
together ;  what  was  left  free  and  undefined  is  brought 
to  measure  and  prescribed."     Not  that  they  really  could 

from  the  other  Levites  —  one  of  the  main  objects  of  his  work.  As  you  will  remember,  this 
is  said  to  have  been  the  Jewish  way  of  writing  history.  Now  it  is  plain  there  would  be  no 
difficulty  in  framing  a  simple  narrative,  embodying  a  divine  punishment  on  Levitical  dis- 
content. But  Ezra's  plan  is  most  subtle.  He  joins  the  Reubenites  and  Levites  in  one 
conspiracy.  There  he  makes  one  point.  The  Reubenites  and  Levites,  we  find,  were 
close  neighbors  in  the  desert  encampments.  Better  still,  he  joins  two  tribes  together  which 
might  be  supposed  to  have  similar  causes  of  discontent.  The  Reubenites  would  be 
jealous  for  that  priesthood  which  was  theirs  by  right  of  birth;  the  Levites  would  be 
jealous  for  that  priesthood  which  had  been  given  the  whole  tribe  for  their  faithfulness  at 
Sinai.  Mark  what  a  genius  Ezra  is.  When  he  writes,  the  Levites  are  smarting  under 
a  recent  wrong;  they  have  had  the  priesthood  for  centuries  and  it  has  just  been  taken 
away  from  them.  Thejealousy  of  the  Reubenites,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a  remote  tr.adition, 
or  possibly  an  invention  of  Ezra's  brain.  Ezra  pieces  together  in  this  marvelous  fashion 
this  actual,  present  jealousy  of  Levi  with  this  remote,  hypothetical  jealousy  of  Reuben, 
so  as  to  give  his  story  a  semblance  of  truth.  He  is  bold  as  well  as  subtle.  He  strikes  at 
the  most  famous  of  all  the  Levitical  families,  the  family  of  Korah,  a  name  which  his 
descendants  had  brought  to  honor.  He  is  so  bold  as  to  be  careless;  for,  at  first  sight,  he 
leaves  us  to  imagine  that  Korah's  family,  so  famous  in  after  history,  was  wholly  destroyed 
along  with  their  father.  Was  Ezra  or  any  one  else  capable  of  thus  fitting  his  history  to 
his  laws?  If  not,  we  must  remember  that  this  narrative  alone,  if  true,  brings  back  the 
sacerdotal  legislation  to  the  Mosaic  times," 
1  Ibid.  p.  164, 


1 24       TJie  Pentateuch  :    Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

have  expected  to  fleece  the  people  to  this  extent,  how- 
ever, for  such  a  provision  as  that  of  the  forty-eight 
Levitical  cities  was  a  pure  invention,  at  once  unexe- 
cuted  and  unexecutable.^ 

Now,  as  it  concerns  JE,  what  rational  ground  can 
there  be  for  assuming  that  it  came  into  being  at  a  time 
when  as  yet  priests  were  not  officially  recognized  or 
provided  by  statute  with  a  sufficient  support  ?  At  best, 
it  can  only  be  a  few  exceptional  instances  which  our 
critics  find  in  abnormal  circumstances  and  an  unsettled 
period  (cf.  i  Sam.  ii.  12-16),  over  against  which  we  are 
able,  as  already  shown,  to  point  in  this  very  document 
to  examples  where  priests  are  found  in  high  official 
position,  and  enjoying  all  that  is  implied  in  it  of  recog- 
nition and  support  (Ex.  xix.  20-25  ;  Josh,  iii.  9-17).  It 
is  inconceivable  that  the  priests  selected  to  bear  the 
ark  across  the  Jordan  before  the  hosts  of  Israel  should 
be  of  the  starveling,  vagabond  class  described  by  Well- 
hausen. 

As  relates  to  D,  we  are  unable  to  find  anything  justi- 
fying the  extreme  position  so  confidently  taken.  It  is 
absurd  to  suppose  that  it  means  to  give  (Deut.  xviii.) 
a  full  account  of  all  that,  in  its  time,  was  appropriated 
for  the  support  of  the  priesthood.  In  that  case  to  have 
been  a  "stranger"  or  a  "foreigner,"  under  the  mild 
Deuteronomic  code,  would  have  been  far  preferable  to 
serving  at  the  miserly  altar  of  Israel's  only  sanctuary. 

The  hypothesis,  moreover,  is  positively  precluded  by 
the  form  of  the  legislation  in  D.  Its  direct  citation 
(xviii.  2)  of  earlier  laws  could  scarcely  be  more  direct 
if  chapter  and  verse  were  given.  The  Deuteronomic 
form  of  the  law,  in  short,  is  but  a  repetition  and 
enlargement  under  circumstances  which  specially  called 

1  Ibid.  p.  168  f. 


The  Proposed  Analysis  Tested.  125 

for  both,  of  previous  enactments.  The  people  after 
more  than  a  generation  of  life  in  camp  are  now  to  be 
scattered  up  and  down  a  wide  extent  of  country,  with 
difficulty  traversable,  and  on  both  sides  of  the  Jordan. 
A  most  important  restriction  touching  the  slaughter  of 
animals  for  food  has  been  accordingly  removed  in  the 
very  opening  lines  of  the  code  (xii.  1 5).  The  revenues 
of  the  sanctuary,  however,  must  suffer  a  proportionate 
abatement.  Supposing,  then,  that  the  code  of  the 
middle  books  is  already  in  force,  what  more  natural 
than  that  some  compensation  should  be  made  to  the 
officiating  priests .''  As  we  have  noticed,  their  title  as 
"  Levitical  priests  "  no  longer  represents  that  exclusive 
dignity  to  which  the  "  sons  of  Aaron "  might  have 
aspired.  Shall  it  not  be  made  to  appear  that  the 
changes  inaugurated  imply  no  lack  of  appreciation  of 
the  priestly  station  and  function  ?  The  offices  to  which 
elsewhere  in  this  book  they  are  seen  to  be  eligible 
require  this  (xvii.  12;  xx.  2;  xxvi.  3).  In  what  a 
lamentable  condition,  indeed,  must  the  religion  of 
Israel  have  been  if  men  of  the  rank  of  supreme  magis- 
trates in  the  administration  of  justice  must  submit, 
under  the  name  of  a  support,  to  the  miserable  pittance 
which  this  form  of  the  code,  taken  by  itself,  grants  to 
its  priests. 

And  if  we  compare  the  regulations  of  D  and  PC  we 
shall  find  that  the  common  theory  best  harmonizes 
with  the  facts.  In  Deuteronomy  xviii.  3,  4,  it  is  said  : 
"  And  this  shall  be  the  right  of  the  priests  from  the 
people  who  offer  sacrifices,  whether  ox  or  sheep,  one 
shall  give  the  priest  the  shoulder,  the  two  cheeks,  and 
the  stomach.  [And  in  addition  to]  the  first-fruits  of 
the  corn,  the  wine,  and  the  oil,  the  first  shearing  of 
the  sheep."     What    is  added   in  parenthesis  serves  to 


1 26       The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

present  the  true  relation  of  this  rule  to  that  of  PC. 
The  introduction  (vs.  r,  2)  shows  that  the  code  of  the 
middle  books  is  kept  strictly  in  view.  There  (Num. 
xviii.  12,  13)  the  first-fruits  have  been  already  promised 
to  the  priests  ;  here  this  fact  is  recalled  in  order  to  add 
to  it  the  wholly  new  source  of  income,  the  first  shear- 
ings of  the  sheep.  That  the  parts  of  the  animal 
assigned  in  D  to  the  priests  are  over  and  above  those 
given  them  in  connection  with  the  peace-offerings  of 
PC  appears  from  the  language  used.  The  terms  are 
carefully  chosen.  Along  with  the  stomach  they  are 
assigned  here  the  "  forequarter "  and  the  two  cheeks  ; 
there  (Lev.  x.  15),  it  is  the  "wave-breast  "  and  "heave- 
leg."  In  PC  it  is  the  peace-offerings  that  are  referred 
to  (Lev.  vii.  1 1  ;  cf.  Num.  xviii.  11);  in  D,  as  it  would 
appear  (note  the  phrase,  vs.  3,  "  from  the  people  " ), 
any  and  all  sacred  meals  which  might  be  made  at  the 
sanctuary  or  places  contiguous  (xii.  17;  xv.  19,  20). 

But  are  there  not  direct  contradictions  of  PC  to  be 
found  in  D,  making  the  ordinary  hypothesis  that  they 
have  the  same  origin  impossible  .-*  So  it  is  announced 
and  specifications  are  given.  In  Deuteronomy,  xii. 
6,  7,  17,  for  example,  the  people  are  forbidden  to 
eat  the  tithe  of  their  products,  except  at  the  central 
sanctuary,  and  the  prohibition  is  later  repeated  (xiv. 
23).  In  PC,  on  the  other  hand  (Num.  xviii.  21,  24, 
26,  28),  the  tithes  are  given  by  a  perpetual  ordinance 
to  the  Levites  as  reward  for  their  services  at  the 
sanctuary ;  and  they  are  even  enjoined  to  give  a 
tenth  of  their  tenth  to  the  priests. 

All  this  is  at  once  admitted,  and  may  be  as  readily 
explained  on  the  ground  that  the  object  of  the  tithe 
in  D  is  wholly  different  from  that  of  PC,  and  is  meant 
to  be  understood  as  a  second  additional  tithe,  although 
not  as  wide  in  its  application  as  the  first. 


The  Proposed  Analysis  Tested.  12/ 

Still  another  tithe,  to  be  made  once  in  three  years 
for  festival  purposes  at  home,  is  a  feature  of  the  legis- 
lation peculiar  to  Deuteronomy  (xiv,  28;  xxvi.  12) 
and  quite  appropriate  to  its  supplementary  character. 
The  three  tithings  taken  together  and  carried  out  to 
the  letter  can  in  no  sense  be  regarded  as  oppressive  in 
their  character  or  in  the  least  out  of  harmony  with 
one  another.  At  any  rate  we  have  direct  historical 
evidence  that  the  Jews  were  accustomed  to  observe 
such  a  system  of  tithing.  And  this  furnishes  the 
strongest  confirmatory  testimony  that  the  three  tithes 
were  all  and  severally  enjoined  in  the  code.^ 

A  more  serious  conflict  still,  it  is  thought,  shows 
itself  in  the  matter  of  the  firstlings  of  the  flocks  and 
herds.  In  D  (xii.  6,  17;  xiv.  23;  xv.  19),  they  are 
devoted  to  festival  purposes  at  the  sanctuary  ;  in  PC 
(Num.  xviii.  15-19),  they  are  given  to  the  priests. 
Here  is  an  apparent  disagreement,  truly,  but  it  is  more 
in  appearance  than  in  reality.  It  is  true  that  the  Levit- 
ical  code  puts  the  firstlings  into  the  hands  of  the 
priests,  but  not  for  any  purpose  they  may  choose. 
They  are  made  theirs  to  sacrifice ;  and  only  after  the 
proper  portion  had  been  offered  on  the  altar  was 
another  fixed  jDortion  to  be  theirs  for  food,  "  as  the 
wave-breast  and  the  right  leg"  were  theirs  (Ex.  xxix. 
26-28  ;  cf.  Deut.  xviii.  3).  That  in  Deuteronomy  the 
more  popular  side  of  the  law  is  presented,  and  these 
very  firstlings,  while  still  belonging  to  the  Lord,  are 
regarded  as  proper  material  for  sacred  meals  on  the 
part  of  their  former  owners  and  their  offerers  is  not  to 
call  in  question  the  legislation  of  the  Book  of  Num- 
bers. It  is  only  to  shed  additional  light  upon  it.  The 
people,  that  is,  the  original  owners  of  the  animals,  are 

^Tobit,  i.  7  ;  Josephus,  Aniiq.  iv.  8.  8. 


128       The  P eiitateiicJi  :    Its  Ongin  and  Structure. 

understood  to  be  sharers  with  the  priests  on  these 
occasions,  as  was  doubtless  the  case  in  the  other  offer- 
ings. In  neither  phase  of  the  legislation  is  there  any- 
exclusive  right  given ;  that  of  PC  especially  limits  it 
(Num.  xviii.  i8). 

Might  it  not  have  been  expected  that  our  critics, 
who  seem  to  be  much  concerned  that  the  priests  are 
granted  in  this  document,  at  the  expense  of  the  people, 
privileges  so  wholly  disproportionate  and  oppressive, 
would  have  discovered  this  very  natural  method  of 
materially  curtailing  their  perquisites } 

Is  it  in  any  sense,  moreover,  true  that  in  PC  the 
claims  of  this  class  have  advanced  to  an  incredible 
extent,  and  become  the  intolerable  yoke  that  is  repre- 
sented .''  Such  a  conclusion  must  be  the  result  of  a 
very  superficial  examination  of  the  subject,  or  a  much 
higher  valuation  of  the  income  of  the  priests  than 
is  either  just  or  reasonable.  Wellhausen  has  by  no 
means  exhausted  the  list  of  things  which,  first  or  last, 
might  be  claimed  by  the  priest,^  although  making  some 
mistakes  in  the  enumeration,  as  others  have  already 
pointed  out.^  He  fails,  however,  to  discriminate  fairly 
as  it  respects  the  real  value  of  the  priestly  per- 
quisites. It  should  have  been  made  clear  that  there 
was  understood  to  be  a  wrong  as  well  as  a  right 
way  of  appropriating  and  using  them.  Some  of  them 
belonged  exclusively  to  the  officiating  priest ;  others  to 
the  whole  class,  —  some  might  be  consumed  by  the 
priest  in  company  with  his  household ;  others,  only  by 
such  male  priests  as  were  ceremonially  clean.  The 
time  and  place  of  their  consumption,  too,  were  defi- 
nitely fixed  by  law  (Lev.  vii.  15-17).  It  should  have 
been  especially  shown,  or  at  least  not  concealed,  that 

1  Ibid.  p.  164.  *  Hoffmann,  ibid.  1880,  p.  143  t 


TJie  Proposed  Analysis  Tested.  129 

the  great  mass  of  these  allotted  gifts  were,  in  their 
very  nature,  exceedingly  perishable,  being  articles  of 
food  that  could  only  have  a  transient  value.  There 
was  little,  indeed,  of  anything  that  fell  exehisively  to 
the  priest,  even  in  PC,  that  could  do  more  than  furnish 
him  a  bare  physical  support. 

Moreover,  the  propriety  of  going  beyond  PC,  into 
the  historical  books  of  the  exile,  in  order  to  find  mate- 
rial for  depreciating  this  class  is  more  than  question- 
able. That  the  support  of  the  sanctuary,  in  addition 
to  their  own  support,  was  in  the  earlier  times  expected 
to  come  out  of  what  was  contributed  to  those  offici- 
ating there  is  to  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  no 
other  provision  was  made  for  it  in  any  of  the  codes. 
When,  therefore,  Wellhausen  cites  Neh.  x.  32,  33  to 
show  that  it  was  not  the  case  (in  the  later  times),  but 
that  special  provision  was  made,  he  cites  a  powerful 
witness  against  his  own  hypothesis.  The  history  and 
the  code  in  its  sujDposed  much  revised  and  finally  com- 
pleted post-exilian  form  are  thus  shown  to  be  strikingly 
out  of  harmony  with  one  another. 

And  when,  now,  in  addition  to  what  has  been  said,  it 
is  considered  that  no  part  of  the  legislation  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch contains  a  syllable  concerning  the  collection 
for  the  priests  of  these  dues,  that  there  is  no  legal 
limitation  of  the  amount  of  the  first-fruits  to  be  given 
them,  and  that  hence  in  all  periods  their  actual  income 
depended  almost  wholly  on  the  generosity  and  the 
religious  fidelity  of  their  countrymen,  the  whole  sub- 
ject assumes  a  wholly  different  aspect.  It  will,  at 
least,  appear  most  clearly  that  the  document  named 
PC  does  not  make  it  one  of  its  chief  aims  to  increase 
the  power  and  wealth  of  this  alleged  favorite  class. 

Still  more  unfortunate,  if  anything,  are  our  critics 


1 30       The  Pentateuch  :    Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

in  the  use  they  make  of  the  legislation  respecting 
the  Levitical  cities  (Num.  xxxv.  1-8 ;  Josh.  xiv.  4).  If 
they  are  a  pure  fabrication  of  PC,  having  the  same 
general  aim  to  increase  the  wealth  and  influence  of  the 
priesthood,  why  are  they  given  to  the  Levites, — to  the 
tribe,  and  not  to  the  family .''  And  why  do  we  find  in 
a  document  having  this  purpose  and  springing  up  in 
the  exile  so  singular  a  division  of  these  cities,  only 
thirteen  of  the  whole  finally  falling  to  the  priests  (Josh, 
xxi.),  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  they  greatly  out- 
numbered the  Levites  at  the  period  of  the  return  from 
Babylon,  and  always  outranked  them,  whether  in  PC  or 
out  of  it .?  Surely  nothing  could  be  more  inconsequent 
than  to  make  this  an  invention  of  the  later  priests. 

And  not  only  does  the  theory  of  invention  condemn 
itself;  it  is  proved  false  by  many  facts  of  Israelitish 
history.  It  is  not  true  that  we  discover  in  this  history 
no  traces  of  the  law  or  efforts  to  enforce  it,  as  Riehm 
has  conclusively  shown.^  In  fact,  the  fundamental 
assumption  of  our  critics  that  according  to  the  records 
of  the  Hebrew  people  the  priesthood  had  at  first  but  a 
'modicum  of  power,  and  that  it  gradually  developed  along 
the  centuries  until  subsequent  to  the  exile  the  apex  of 
the  pyramid  was  reached,  is  radically  incorrect.  To 
make  such  an  impression  possible  the  history  must  be 
tortured  and  schooled  and  made  to  tell  a  preconcerted 
story.  The  sojourn  in  Egypt  must  be  denied  ;  and  just 
as  stoutly  any  connection  of  this  class  with  the  Jewish 
lawgiver  through  Aaron  its  head.  There  must  be  an 
overlooking  of  those  passages  in  which  JE  itself  speaks 
of  the  priests,  with  the  highest  respect,  and  of  the 
numerous  points  in  the  history  where  to  the  hand  of 
the  priest  are  gathered  the  reins  of  highest  influence 
even  in  civil  affairs. 

1  HandiuSrterbuch,  *.».  "  Levitenstadte," 


The  Proposed  Analysis  Tested.  131 

It  was  inevitable,  in  the  nature  of  things,  that  in  the 
checkered  history  of  Israel,  especially  during  the  wars 
of  the  conquest,  the  rule  of  the  judges,  the  rise  and 
dominance  of  mighty  prophets,  this  class  should  seem 
sometimes  to  be  overshadowed,  and  that  particularly  in 
the  spiritual  decadence  of  the  people  the  proverb  should 
be  fulfilled,  "like  people,  like  priest"  (Isa.  xxiv.  2). 

But  in  all  this  there  is  no  justification  for  the  sus- 
picion that  the  Levitical  legislation  was  not  behind 
them.  Their  failure  in  all  cases  to  live  up  to  it  is 
sufficiently  clear  and  need  not  be  denied.  It  is  strik- 
ingly paralleled  in  the  better  furnished  ministry  of  the 
Christian  church.  The  purest  and  most  dutiful  Aaronic 
priest  is  only  debtor  to  the  confession  of  the  noblest 
and  most  faithful  servant  of  Christ :  "  I  count  not 
myself  to  have  apprehended."  The  standard  in  both 
cases  is  planted  far  above  the  attainment,  and  in  both 
alike  proves  thereby  the  divinity  of  its  origin  and  the 
perfectness  of   its  ends. 


IV. 

LAWS  PECULIAR  TO  DEUTERONOMY. 


The  importance  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  in  all 
discussions  touching  the  age  and  origin  of  the  Penta- 
teuch cannot  well  be  overestimated.  Leading  critics, 
indeed,  like  De  Wette  ^  and  Graf,^  have  regarded  it  as 
decisive  battleground.  Lying  in  the  midst  of  the  sup- 
posed development  of  Pentateuch  literature  from  Moses 
to  Ezra,  it  ought  to  show,  if  it  appear  anywhere,  positive 
evidence  of  the  evolution  then  in  progress.  It  ought 
to  show  this  especially  in  its  legislation,  which,  as  the 
name  "Deuteronomy"  imports,  forms  the  body,  and  is 
undoubtedly  the  main  object,  of  the  work.  It  ought  to 
show  it  most  of  all  in  such  laws  as  are  original  with  this 
book  and  intrinsically  represent  it. 

It  is  said  of  the  Pentateuch  codes  in  general  that  they 
but  reflect,  in  their  several  parts,  the  changing  social 
and  ethical  standard  of  the  Hebrew  people  during  many 
hundred  years  previous  to  the  exile.     If  this  be  true, 

*  Lehrbuch  der  historisch-kritischeti  Einleitung.  \  Neu  bearbeitet  von  Schrader, 
Berlin,  1869,  pp.  -iii^.;  and  Studien  u.  Kriiiken,  1837,  p.  953:  "The  view  taken  of 
Deuteronomy  is  for  the  criticism  of  the  Pentateuch  decisive." 

2  Die  Geschichtlichen  B'ucher  des  Alien  Testaments,  p.  4  f. ;  cf.  also  Kleinert,  Das 
Deuteronomiitm,  p.  3:  "  Denn  zwar  dieses  erkennt  De  Wette  an,  und  hat  damit  fiir 
seine  Nachfolger  einen  Fingerzeig  gegeben,  dessen  Nichtbeachtung  fast  immer  der 
kritischen  Untersuchung  zur  Schadigung  gereicht  hat:  dass  in  dem  Deuteronomium  das 
i)(><i  /JJil  TtdU  (TTW  fiir  die  ganze  kritische  Frage  iiber  den  Pentateuch  gegeben  ist." 
Wellhausen,  on  the  other  hand,  with  a  good  deal  of  unnecessary  bravado,  rules  the  whole 
matter  out  of  the  discussion  as  something  already  settled.  He  says  (Geschichte,  p.  9) : 
"  Ueber  den  Ursprung  des  Deuteronomiums  herrscht  noch  weniger  Zweifel;  in  alien 
Kreisen,  wo  iiberhaupt  auf  Anerkennung  wissenschaftlicher  Resultate  zu  rechnen  ist, 
wird  anerkannt,  dass  es  in  derZeit  verfasst  ist,  in  deres  entdeckt  .  .  .  wurde." 


Laws  Peculiar  to  Dc2iteronomy.  133 

and  they  are  in  no  sense  ideal  or  prophetical  in  char- 
acter, the  peculiar  product  of  a  superhuman  revelation, 
or  inspiration  at  the  genesis,  and  throughout  the 
progress  of  a  much  more  limited  development,  the 
fact  should  appear  most  plainly,  not  so  much  in  the 
features  that  are  common  to  all  of  them,  but  rather  in 
such  as  are  exceptional  and  individual.  There  are  some 
laws,  as  for  example  that  regarding  public  worship,  or 
that  of  the  feasts,  which,  in  a  form  more  or  less  modi- 
fied, appear,  as  we  have  seen,  in  each  of  the  three  great 
divisions  of  the  Pentateuch  legislation.  In  such  cases 
there  is  ample  room  for  discussion,  in  fact,  imperative 
need  of  it,  on  a  host  of  questions  quite  apart  from  the 
main  question.  It  must  first  of  all  be  determined 
whether  these  diverse  forms  are,  as  alleged,  the  result 
of  widely  varying  circumstances  of  place  and  time,  or 
may  fairly  be  regarded  as  evidence  simply  of  another 
point  of  view  within  the  same  period  and  on  the  part 
of  the  same  legislator.  Where,  however,  a  law  is  found 
in  but  one  of  these  divisions  and  in  but  one  form,  the 
area  of  debatable  ground  is  greatly  lessened.  We  are 
then  prepared  at  once  to  test  our  critical  theory  con- 
cerning the  age  of  the  document  and  to  do  it  under 
circumstances  of  the  least  embarrassment. 

Now,  it  is  well  known  that  no  inconsiderable  portion 
of  the  Deuteronomic  laws  are  of  this  character.  And 
it  is  a  highly  significant  fact  in  itself,  since  it  is  just 
what  we  might  expect  on  the  common  hypothesis  that 
this  code  chronologically  concludes  the  legislation  of 
the  Pentateuch.  But  it  is  also  of  value  as  furnishing 
a  capital  opportunity  to  prove  the  validity  of  a  favorite 
tenet  of  many  modern  critics. 

Out  of  the  full  score  of  these  early  laws  original  with 
Deuteronomy,  and  confined  to  it,  there  are  some,  it  is 


134        l^^i-^  Pentateuch:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

true,  of  such  a  nature  that  a  chronological  test  can  only 
with  difficulty  be  applied  to  them.  But  with  the 
majority  it  is  quite  otherwise.  Their  response  to  such 
a  test  is  both  immediate  and  categorically  direct.  The 
only  question  remaining  to  be  asked,  that  is,  for  those 
who  will  press  a  question  of  this  sort,  is  whether  these 
laws  are  seriously  meant,  or,  like  the  so-called  "  Blue 
Laws  "  of  Connecticut,  are  but  ^//(?.s-z-statutes,  whose 
originator  was  satisfied  if  they  were  founded  on  fact 
and  were  not  easily  distinguishable  from  fact. 

The  first  example  of  a  law  peculiar  to  Deuteronomy 
is  that  concerning  scductioji  to  idolatry.  It  occupies 
the  entire  thirteenth  chapter  and  appears  in  three 
sections  :  (i)  as  applying  to  false  prophets  (vs.  2-6) ; 
(2)  to  individual  members  of  the  community  whom  it 
rigorously  singles  out  from  the  most  intimate  relation- 
ships (vs.  7-12)  ;  and  (3)  to  whole  cities  which  might 
become  infected  with  the  crime  (vs.  13-19).  The  close 
logical  connection,  both  of  the  subject  and  its  treatment 
with  what  immediately  precedes,  is  the  first  thing  that 
attracts  attention. 

The  Deuteronomic  code,  opening  with  the  twelfth 
chapter,  begins  with  a  command  addressed  to  the 
people  to  totally  destroy  idolatry  and  remove  every 
vestige  of  it  from  the  land  which  the  Lord  their  God 
is  giving  them  as  a  possession  (xii.  2-4).  Next  follow 
directions  respecting  their  own  place  of  worship. 
There  is  to  be  but  one  such  place,  and  the  Lord  him- 
self will  designate  it  (xii.  5-28).  Then  comes  the 
present  law  prohibiting,  under  penalties  the  severest 
known  to  the  Pentateuch,  efforts  from  any  quarter  to 
draw  away  the  people  into  heathenism. 

In  these  three  phases  of  the  law,  together  with  a 
later  section  (xvii.  2-5)  on  the  punishment  of  Hebrew 


Laws  Peculiar  to  Deuteronomy.  135 

idolaters,  we  have  what  seems  intended  to  be  a  com- 
plete presentation  of  the  subject  as  well  on  its  positive 
as  its  negative  side.  It  is  not  easy  to  see  how  any 
code  could  have  more  fully  met  the  requirements  of  the 
case  on  the  supposition  that  the  Israelitish  people  are 
what  and  where  they  purport  to  be.  It  offers  by  far 
the  most  developed  form  of  Pentateuch  legislation  on 
this  theme.  That  of  the  middle  books,  notwithstand- 
ing the  fact  that  it  is  supposed  to  have  originated 
during  the  exile  when  the  popular  spirit  of  opposition 
to  idolatry  really  culminated,  is  not  only  less  compre- 
hensive but  much  less  stringent.  And  what  more 
natural }  The  gigantic  evil  against  which  a  struggle, 
unsuccessful  for  a  full  millennium  was  to  be  under- 
taken, now  fairly  confronted  them.  Every  part  of  the 
law  breathes  the  spirit  of  originality  and  of  initiatory 
movement.  There  are  two  allusions  to  the  exodus 
from  Egypt  (vs.  6,  11).  The  crossing  of  the  Jordan 
is  in  immediate  prospect ;  participial  forms  and  tlie 
future  tense  of  the  verb  characterize  every  reference 
to  the  promised  land. 

On  the  contrary,  there  is  nothing  in  the  times  of 
King  Josiah,  eight  centuries  later,  where  critics  would 
anchor  our  code,  save  his  singular  zeal  for  purity  of 
worship,  that  could  suggest  the  origin  of  such  a  stat- 
ute in  his  time.  He  did,  it  is  true,  slay  on  their  own 
altars  some  priests  of  the  high  places  of  Samaria  (2 
Kings  xxiii.  20)  ;  but  the  history  of  that  period  fur- 
nishes no  occasion  for  the  peculiar  specifications  of  our 
law  touching  idolatrous /r^///tVi'  (vs.  2-6)  ;  and  its  form, 
in  other  respects,  especially  in  its  allusions  to  Canaani- 
tish  neighbors,  would  have  been  an  anachronism  at  so 
late  a  day. 

It  is  universally  admitted  that  the  reforms  of  Josiah 


1 36       TJie  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

were  largely  inspired  and  directed  by  this  law.  But 
how  is  it  to  be  accounted  for,  unless  by  the  account  it 
gives  of  itself?  On  no  principle  of  development  could 
it  have  been  the  spontaneous  product  of  the  age 
wherein  it  wrought  so  mightily.  The  reformation  in 
the  days  of  Hezekiah  and  other  earlier  kings  is  also 
evidence  against  it.  If,  however,  from  the  period  of 
the  conquest  it  had  existed  and  lain  comparatively 
dormant,  but  now,  when  the  divided  kingdom  was 
hastening  to  its  fall,  under  the  divine  Providence  it  had 
come  to  its  inherited  right  and  its  legitimate  influence, 
the  prodigious  effects  produced  may  be  readily  under- 
stood. There  is  many  an  analogous  fact  in  the  history 
of  Christianity.  In  the  vegetable  world,  too,  as  is  well 
known,  there  are  plants  that  reach  their  bloom  only 
after  lengthy  periods  of  seeming  unproductiveness. 
But  there  is  no  period  when  the  flower  is  not  present 
in  germ  or  that  all  the  energies  of  the  plant  are  not 
steadily  working  toward  it. 

The  next  independent  law  of  Deuteronomy  relates 
to  the  appointment  of  judges  and  officers  (xvi.  18): 
"Judges  and  officers  shall  ye  appoint  for  yourselves 
in  all  your  gates."  By  "judges,"  magistrates  seem  to 
be  meant,  and  by  "ofificers,"  their  assistants.  In  a 
second  passage  (xvii.  8-13)  it  is  further  enjoined  that 
if  these  local  magistrates  find  any  case  brought  before 
them  for  decision  too  difficult,  they  —  the  judges  or 
elders,  not  the  people  —  may  carry  it  up  to  the  central 
place  of  worship  and  submit  it  to  the  Levitical  priests 
or  to  the  judge,  that  is,  supreme  magistrate  who  might 
be  ruling  in  those  days  ;  a  verdict  thus  obtained  should 
be  irreversible. 

The  law  obviously  contemplates  a  settled  order  of 
things  in  the  land  of   Canaan.     It  does  not,  however. 


Laws  Peculiar  to  Deiitcronomy.  137 

presuppose  it.  The  cities  referred  to  are  those  which 
the  Lord  their  God  is  "on  the  point  of  giving"  them. 
It  shows,  no  doubt,  an  advance  as  it  respects  the  insti- 
tutions of  the  wilderness  (Ex.  xviii.  13-26;  cf.  Num.  xi. 
16,  17,  24-29),  but  an  advance  along  the  same  line. 
The  original  provision  for  seventy  elders  is  so 
extended  as  to  adapt  it  to  circumstances  in  immediate 
prospect.  The  dignity  and  the  civil  power  which,  up 
to  this  time,  had  inhered  in  Moses  and  the  high-priest 
are  now  to  be  vested  in  the  priests  of  the  central  sanc- 
tuary and  the  chief  magistrate  of  the  nation. 

And  this  arrangement  seems  actually  to  have  been 
carried  out,  at  least  in  its  main  features,  in  the  post- 
Mosaic  history,  by  Joshua  (viii.  33  ;  xxiv.  i),  during  the 
time  of  the  judges  (cf.  Ruth  iv.  1-9),  and  in  the  life  of 
Samuel.  It  is  maintained,  however,  that  in  this  whole 
matter  our  author  simply  imputes  to  Moses  something 
that  must  have  originated  at  a  much  later  day.  Even 
so  conservative  a  critic  as  Riehm^  affirms  that  the 
existence  in  his  time  of  a  court  of  appeal  is  presup- 
posed by  the  writer  of  Deuteronomy.  And  inasmuch 
as  the  history  gives  us  no  account  of  an  institution  like 
it  before  the  reign  of  Jehosaphat  (2  Chron.  xix.  8-1 1) 
five  centuries  later,  we  must  conclude  that  the  law 
relating  to  judges  and  officers  was  made  after  his  day. 

To  this  reasoning  and  conclusion  alike  we  are  quite 
unprepared  to  subscribe.  For,  in  the  first  place,  if 
anything  is  taken  for  granted  in  the  Deuteronomic  law 
of  the  higher  court,  it  is  the  possibility  and  the  custom 
of  appeal,  not  the  existence  of  this  very  court.  With 
such  a  general  custom  the  people  had  been  familiar  at 
least  for  a  generation,  the  harder  questions  having  all 
along   been   carried   to    Moses   and   Aaron,    and   after 

1  Ceseizgebunf^  Mosis,  p.  62 ;  Handworterbuc/i,  s.v.  "  Gerichtswesen." 


138        The  Pentateuch:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Aaron's  death  to  Moses  and  Eleazer  (Num.  xxvii.  2). 
This  practice  was  now  to  be  continued,  the  highest 
civil  authority  acting  for  the  lawgiver. 

In  the  second  place,  the  court  instituted  by  Jehosa- 
phat  was,  in  some  of  its  features,  a  totally  different 
affair  from  the  one  before  us.  It  was  composed  of 
priests  and  Levites,  instead  of  Levitical  priests.  It 
had  a  civil,  as  well  as  ecclesiastical,  head  acting  at  one 
and  the  same  time.  Our  law  presents  them  as  acting 
independently.  The  civil  head  is  represented  by  a 
family  chief  of  Judah,  ndgtdh,  an  official  unknown  to 
Deuteronomy  in  this  connection,  with  whom  are  asso- 
ciated also  some  of  the  chiefs  of  the  fathers  of  Israel ; 
while  the  high-priest  is  the  ecclesiastical  head. 

In  the  third  place,  we  find  David,  a  hundred  and  fifty 
years  before  the  time  of  Jehosaphat,  apparently  guided 
in  his  appointment  of  officials  by  the  Deuteronomic 
code  (i  Chron.  xxiii.  1-4;  xxvi.  29-32).  It  might, 
indeed,  be  objected  that  this  account  of  what  David  did 
is  found  only  in  the  much  depreciated  history  of  the 
Chronicler.  But  if  the  second  of  his  books  be  compe- 
tent authority  for  the  alleged  acts  of  Jehosaphat,  the 
first  should  be  thought  no  less  so  for  those  of  David. 

The  law  for  \.\iQ  piinisJinient  of  Hebirw  idolaters  (xvii. 
2-5)  has  been  already  casually  mentioned  in  connection 
with  that  concerning  seduction  to  idolatry.  Like  the 
latter,  it  professes  to  be  anticipatory  legislation  (v,  2)  ; 
and  there  would  be  no  further  need  of  calling  attention 
to  it  were  it  not  for  a  peculiar  species  of  idolatry  to 
which  it  refers  :  "  And  hath  gone  and  served  other  gods 
and  worshiped  them  as  the  sun,  or  the  moon,  or  any  of 
the  host  of  heaven  which  I  have  not  commanded  "  (v.  3). 
The  worship  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  Sabaeanism,  is  here 
recognized  as   a  possibility.     But   from  the   historical 


Laws  Peculiar  to  Dcntcrojiomy.  139 

books  of  the  Old  Testament  (2  Kings  xxi.  3  ff. ; 
2  Chron.  xxxiii.  3  ff.),  we  learn  that  the  public  introduc- 
tion of  such  worship  injiidah  took  place  in  the  reign  of 
Manasseh,  at  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  century 
before  Christ.  It  is  accordingly  held  that  the  present 
law  would  be  out  of  place  in  the  time  of  Moses,  the 
tacit  assumption,  of  course,  being  that  a  law  never  pre- 
cedes, but  always  follows,  the  outbreak  of  the  crime 
against  which  it  is  directed. 

But,  were  such  a  principle  to  be  admitted  in  the 
present  case,  the  conclusion  reached  would  by  no 
means  follow,  since  there  is  overwhelming  evidence 
that  this  particular  form  of  idolatry  had  been  known 
to  the  Israelites  from  the  beginning.  The  kingdom  of 
Israel  had  practised  it  long  before  the  time  of  Manas- 
seh, as  witnessed  to  by  the  Books  of  Kings  (2  Kings 
xvii.  16).  Amos,  too  (v.  26  f.),  during  the  reign  of  Jero- 
boam II.,  makes  direct  reference,  as  is  now  acknowl- 
edged by  the  best  authorities,  to  the  worship  of  Saturn 
in  the  northern  kingdom,  naming  the  planet  both  by  its 
Accadian  and  its  Assyrian  title.^ 

It  is  indisputable,  moreover,  that  sun,  moon,  and  star 
worship  was  one  of  the  most  primitive  and  universal 
forms  of  idolatry  among  the  leading  nations  with  which 
the  Hebrews  during  the  Mosaic  period  came  in  contact. 

'.See  Riehm's  Handworterbuch,  s.  v.  "  Assyrien,"  "Sonne";  also  Schrader, 
Die  Keilinschriften,  etc.  ate  Aufl.,  p.  442,  and  in  Studien  nnd  Kritiken,  1874,  pp. 
324-332.  Hommel,  too  {Die  Vorsemitischeti  Kulticren,  i.  (2),  p.  204),  speaks  of  the 
renowned  temple  of  the  goddess  of  the  Moon,  which  the  o/d  king  of  Ur,  Ur-bagas  (c.  2870 
B.C.),  and  his  son  Dungi  built;  and  still  further  (p.  209),  of  a  temple  of  the  Sun  at 
Larsa,  the  EUasar  of  Gen.  xiv.  i.  Rawlinson,  in  The  Religious  of  the  AncietU  IVorld 
(p.  145),  says  of  the  religion  of  the  Phoenicians  :  "  That  Shamas  or  Shemesh,  '  the  Sun,' 
was  worshiped  separately  from  Baal  has  already  been  mentioned.  In  Assyria  and  Baby- 
lonia he  was  one  of  the  foremost  deities;  and  his  cult  among  the  Phoenicians  is  witnessed 
to  by  such  names  as  Abed-Shemesh,  which  is  found  in  two  of  the  native  inscriptions.  .  .  . 
The  sun-worship  of  the  Phuenicians  seems  to  have  been  accomp.inied  by  a  use  of  sun- 
images,  of  which  we  have  perhaps  a  specimen  in  the  accompanying  figure  which  occurs 
on  a  votive  tablet  found  in  Numidia." 


140       TJie  Pentateuch:   Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

It  lay  at  the  basis  of  the  Baal  and  Astarte  cultus  of 
their  Canaanitish  neighbors.  Its  prevalence  in  Egypt 
is  proved  by  the  monuments.^  And  how  seriously 
Abraham's  Chaldaean  ancestry  was  devoted  to  it 
appears  from  the  fact  that  in  the  wedge  -  shaped 
inscriptions  of  their  day  the  uniform  ideographic 
representation  of  the  divinity  was  a  star.^  Hence,  so 
far  from  finding  it  strange  that  we  meet  with  an  alleged 
Mosaic  law  of  this  sort  in  Deuteronomy,  we  should 
think  it  strange  if  under  the  circumstances  supposed  it 
were  not  there. 

Besides,  the  form  of  the  statute  is  not  to  be  over- 
looked :  "  And  hath  gone  and  served  other  gods  .  .  . 
which  I  have  not  commanded."  A  certain  kind  of 
worship  then  had  been  enjoined.  We  cannot  well  be 
mistaken  in  supposing  that  the  second  of  the  ten  com- 
mandments is  specially  referred  to.  "  Thou,  shalt  have 
no  other  gods  before  me,"  and  especially  the  clause, 
"  Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee  any  graven  image  or 
any  likeness  of  that  which  is  in  heaven  above  "  (Ex. 
XX.  3,  4). 

We  are  confirmed  in  this  view  by  what  is  said  in  a 
previous  chapter  of  Deuteronomy  (iv.  19),  where  the 
writer,  indirectly  commenting  on  the  giving  of  the  law 
at  Horeb,  alludes  to  this  very  thing,  that  is,  interprets 
the  second  commandment,  as  it  would  seem  in  this 
sense :  "  And  lest  thou  lift  up  thine  eyes  unto  heaven, 
and  when  thou  seest  the  sun  and  the  moon  and  the 
stars,  all  the  host  of  heaven,  shouldst  be  led  to  worship 
and  serve  them."  So  that  the  force  of  the  concluding 
words  of  our  law,  "  worship  any  of  the  host  of  heaven 
which  I  have  not  commanded,"  may  fairly  be  said  to 
be,  "  which  I  have  elsewhere  already  forbidden." 

1  Cf.  Ebers,  s.v.  "  Egypten,"  in  Riehm's  Haiidworterb.;  also  s.v.  "  Gebet,"  idem, 

2  Idetn.  s.v,  "  Assyrien."     Cf.  Rawlinson,  AncietU  Mon.  i.  pp.  123,  127. 


Laws  Pcadiar  to  Deuteronomy.  1 4 1 

We  come  next  in  order  to  the  law  of  the  king  (Deut. 
xvii.  14-20).  Fault  has  often  been  found  with  the 
original  political  constitution  of  the  Hebrew  people, 
as  formulated  in  the  Pentateuch,  on  the  ground  of  its 
impracticability.  It  was,  to  some  extent,  impracticable, 
and  for  a  very  natural  reason.  A  pure  theocracy  would 
be  wholly  practicable  only  among  unfallen  or  perfectly 
sanctified  men.  It  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  defect  of 
the  Mosaic  constitution  that  it  put  forward  so  unique 
and  noble  an  ideal ;  that  it  pursued  it  till  its  practica- 
bility at  that  time,  and  under  the  circumstances  that 
then  prevailed,  was  fully  demonstrated  ;  or,  further,  that 
from  the  first  it  foresaw  the  exigencies  that  would  arise 
(Gen.  xvii.  16;  xxxvi.  31  ;  xlix.  10)  and  made  provision 
for  them  by  means  of  statutes  designed  to  regulate  and 
limit  what  might  not  be  wholly  prevented. 

The  law  of  the  king,  as  we  find  it  recorded  in  Deu- 
teronomy, is,  on  its  face,  framed  in  anticipation  of  a 
juncture  to  arise.  It  looks  forward  to  a  period  when 
the  Canaanites  shall  have  been  dispossessed,  their  land 
apportioned,  and  Israel  definitely  settled  in  it.  The 
demand  for  a  king  would  then  arise.  It  would  come 
from  the  people.  Permission  is  granted  to  comply  with 
this  demand  conditionally,  and  directions  given  in  detail 
concerning  the  manner  of  the  sovereign's  choice,  the 
title  he  shall  bear,  the  government  of  his  household,  his 
income,  his  relative  position  among  his  brethren,  the 
succession,  and  other  matters,  in  a  way  to  set  him 
wholly  apart  from  any  contemporaneous  kings,  so, 
indeed,  as  to  show  that  he  was  to  be  a  king  under  the 
peculiar  conditions  of  a  government  that  must  still  be 
recognized,  as  in  the  end,  theocratic. 

The  law,  in  short,  is  Mosaic  in  the  finest  shading  of 
its  phraseology.     It  is  true  that  some  temptations  and 


1 42        The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Strnctnre. 

evil  practices  of  kings  in  general  — •  in  the  event  proving 
to  be  also  those  of  later  Israelitish  kings,  like  Solomon 
—  seem  to  have  been  directly  in  mind  throughout  and 
guarded  against.  With  the  knowledge  of  what  the 
kings  of  Egypt  and  Canaan  were,  what  less  could  have 
been  expected  of  such  a  man  as  Moses,  to  say  nothing 
of  the  fact  that  our  book  represents  him  as  a  prophet  ? 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  features  of  this  law 
which  plainly  preclude  the  theory  of  its  supposed  origin 
near  the  close  of  the  seventh  century  b.c.  What  sense 
on  such  a  supposition  in  the  injunction  that  a  foreigner 
was  not  to  be  set  up  as  a  king  ?  Already,  for  centuries, 
the  succession  had  been  firmly  established  in  the  family 
of  David. ^  Or  in  forbidding  to  lead  the  people  back 
again  to  Egypt }  Such  a  return  had  not  been  thought 
of  since  the  first  crossing  of  the  Jordan ;  although  so 
familiar  a  subject  in  the  mouths  of  the  people  in  Moses' 
time  (Ex.  xvi.  3  ;  Num.  xi.  5  ;  xiv.  4). 

It  is  true  that  we  do  not  find  Samuel,  when  long 
after  the  subject  of  a  king  is  broached  by  the  discon- 
tented people  (i  Sam.  viii.  i  ff.),  quoting  this  law. 
There  is  excellent  reason  for  his  not  doing  so.  He  is 
looking  at  the  matter  and  speaking  of  it  from  the  point 
of  view  of  his  petitioners.  He  calls  attention  to  the 
additional  and  oppressive  burdens  the  new  office  will 
entail  on  them  ;  to  the  more  than  questionable  spirit 
and  form  in  which  their  request  is  made.  It  is  true 
that  he  feels  obliged  to  condemn  the  project,  as  it  is 

1  Delitzsch  {Zeitschrift  fiir  kirchliche  Wissenschaft,  etc.  i8So,  p.  565)  has  suffi- 
ciently answered  the  point  made  by  Prof.  W.  Robertson  Smith  (A  nswer  to  the  A  mended 
Libel,  ■^.  26),  who  refers  to  Is.  viii.  5,  in  evidence  that  "  die  syrisch-ephraimtische  Ligue 
die  Davidische  Dynastie  zu  beseitigen  und  einen  Syrer  Ben  Tab'el  zum  Konige  von  Juda 
zu  machen  gedachte,  indem  er  dabei  bemerkt,  dass  eine  Partei  in  Juda  dieses  Vorhaben 
begiinstigte.  Aber  woher  weiss  er  dass  so  gewiss?  Es  ist  nichts  als  auf  streitiger  und 
mehr  als  unwahrscheinlicher  Deutung  von  les.  S,  6  benihende  Vermuthung.''  He  adds 
that  the  sins  there  rebuked  are  common  to  the  whole  people. 


Laws  Pcctdiaj'  to  Deuteronomy.  143 

brought  before  him,  just  as  Gideon  had  already  done 
(Judges  viii.  22,  23) ;  and  that  finally  in  those  particular 
circumstances  —  as  in  any  circumstances  if  the  best 
thing  were  wanted  —  the  request  for  a  king  is  conceded 
under  protest.  But  there  is  just  as  little  reason  on  this 
ground  for  holding  that  Samuel  was  unacquainted  with 
the  Deuteronomic  law  of  the  king,  as  there  is  for 
holding  that  Hosea  was  not  acquainted  with  it,  who 
also  says  (xiii.  11)  that  God  gave  to  Israel  a  king  in  his 
anger;  or  that  St.  Stephen  (Acts  xiii.  21)  was  ignorant 
both  of  Samuel's  and  of  Hosea's  words  because  in  his 
reference  to  the  choice  of  Saul  as  king  he  says  not 
a  word  of  there  being  any  opposition  to  it. 

The  people  of  Samuel's  time,  it  is  evident,  knew  of  the 
law  ;  they  do  not  overlook  the  advantage  they  have  in 
it  in  the  appeal  they  make.  They  use  its  language 
almost  word  for  word  in  Hebrew,  "make  us  a  king  to 
judge  us  like  all  the  nations  "  (i  Sam.  viii.  5  ;  cf.  Deut. 
xvii.  14).  And  it  has  been  noticed  that  the  whole 
context  is  saturated  with  Deuteronomic  expressions 
and  ideas.^ 

iCf.  Sime,  Kingdom  of  All  Israel  (London,  1883),  pp.  35-38,  and  Professor  Green 
in  the  Sunday-School  Times  for  October  6,  13,  1883.  The  ingenious  theory  of  Ewald 
adopted  by  Riehm  (^Gesetzgebung  Mosis,  p.  81  ff.),  that  in  the  specification  of  our  law 
that  the  king  "  shall  not  multiply  horses  to  himself,  nor  cause  the  people  to  return  to 
Egypt,  to  the  end  that  he  may  multiply  horses,"  the  hiring  out  of  Israelites  as  mercenaries 
to  the  Egyptian  king  is  meant;  and  that  such  a  state  of  things  might  well  have  existed  in 
the  time  of  Manasseh  is  utterly  lacking  in  documentary  support.  The  only  passage  that 
even  looks  in  this  direction  is  the  threatening  contained  in  Deut.  xxviii.  68,  that  in  case 
of  unfaithfulness  the  people  shall  be  carried  down  to  Egypt  in  ships.  Aside  from  this 
there  is  not  a  hint  of  such  a  possibility  in  the  biblical  books.  And  it  is  impossible  to 
suppose  that  if  a  project  so  repugnant  to  the  Jewish  spirit  and  institutions  had  been 
entertained,  it  would  have  been  so  completely  overlooked. 

Moreover,  in  the  narrative  of  the  crowning  of  Joash,  c.  878  b.c.  (2  Kings  xi.  12),  jhere 
is  a  notable  allusion  to  a  law  of  some  kind  that  was  committed  to  him.  It  is  said  of  the 
high-priest  on  that  occasion  that  he  brought  forth  the  king's  son  and  put  the  crown 
and  the  testimony  upon  him.  On  the  original  word  for  "  testimony,"  Thenius  says 
{Co}n.,  in  loco)  that  it  was  not  an  ornament,  not  a  phylactery  on  the  crown,  not  the 
royal  insignia,  but  the  law,  a  book  in  which  Mosaic  regulations  had  been  written.  This 
conclusion  is  certainly  in  harmony  with  the  uniform  employment  of  the  word  in  the  Old 
Testament.     And   Klcinert  ^DeuUronomiii/u,  p.   ^jj),   with   other  firsl-rate  authorities. 


144       J^fi^  Pentateuch:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Not  inferior  in  importance  to  this  law  of  the  king, 
among  the  independent  statutes  of  the  present  code,  is 
that  relating  to  the  prophet  l^v\\\.  15-19).  "A  prophet 
from  the  midst  of  thee,  from  thy  brethren  like  myself, 
shall  the  Lord  thy  God  raise  up  unto  thee,"  etc.  It  is 
most  singularly  introduced  in  connection  with  a  prohibi- 
tion of  magic,  to  which,  in  fact,  it  holds  a  subordinate 
position.  Moses  is  the  speaker.  He  assumes,  as  some- 
thing well  understood,  that  this  prophet  had  been 
already  provided  for  at  the  giving  of  the  law  in  Sinai, 
although  we  have  no  other  record  of  such  a  provision. 
He  declares  that  when  he  comes  he  will  be  the  mouth- 
piece of  Jehovah  to  Israel,  and  that  whoever  refuses 
to  hear  him,  it  will  be  required  of  him. 

Nowhere  is  the  personality  of  the  great  mediator  of 
the  Siniatic  covenant  more  distinctly  impressed  on  an 
utterance  of  the  Pentateuch.  Now,  let  it  be  supposed 
that  it  was  not  he.  Let  us  look  for  a  moment  at  the 
hypothesis  that  it  is  some  unknown  prophet  or  priest  of 
many  centuries  later  who  is  speaking  here,  as  if  he  were 
Moses.  What  must  have  been  the  man's  temerity  to 
press  his  impersonation  to  the  extent  that  he  not  only 
makes  the  supposititious  lawgiver  say  that  the  coming 
prophet  will  be  like  himself,  but  refer  to  an  event  in 
his  own  and  their  past  history  concerning  which  the 
Pentateuch  is  silent  and  the  people  of  that  later  day 
were  probably  ignorant }  How  strange  the  working 
of  his  mind,  especially  if  he  were  himself  a  prophet, 
that  he  should   introduce  in  so    dubious  a  connection, 

supposes  that  our  Deuteronomic  law  of  the  king  is  specially  meant.  Whether  this  be 
so,  or,  as  seems  more  likely,  it  be  the  entire  code  of  Deuteronomy  that  is  referred  to  Ccf. 
Deut.  xvii.  18,  19),  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  it  was  considered  the  proper  thing 
to  do  to  pot  a  written  copy  of  some  portion  of  the  Pentateuch  in  the  hands  of  the  king  on 
his  acceislon.  And  since  this  is  one  of  the  very  things  enjoined  in  the  statute  we  are  now 
considering,  it  is  to  be  inferred  that  the  custom  arose  in  this  way  through  the  mediation 
of  the  priests,  in  whose  hands  it  was  kept. 


Laws  Peculiar  to  Deuteronomy.  14^ 

that  is,  as  subordinate  to  a  law  on  magic,  the  matter 
of  Hebrew  prophecy,  and  the  culmination  of  it  too,  an 
institution  surpassed  by  no  other  in  its  grandeur  and 
importance. 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  critics  who  reject  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  these  laws  will,  with  Delitzsch 
and  others,  see  in  the  present  one  a  direct,  not  to  say 
exclusive,  prophetic  reference  to  the  Messiah.  They 
would  rather  choose  to  hold,  it  is  likely,  that  if  there 
be  a  latent  allusion  to  such  a  possible  outcome  of 
prophecy,  it  is  simply  the  product  of  a  wholly  natural 
hope  and  aspiration  of  the  Jewish  mind. 

If  this  be  so,  and  we  have  before  us  simply  an  ex  post 
facto  reference  to  Hebrew  prophets  and  prophecy  in 
general,  as  they  had  come  to  be,  and  to  be  known  long 
before  the  conjectured  date  of  Deuteronomy,  it  is 
certainly  a  surprising  and  wellnigh  incredible  circum- 
stance. The  almost  surreptitious  manner  of  its 
introduction,  as  we  have  said,  puzzles  us.  It  presents, 
moreover,  but  a  single  one  of  the  prophet's  many-sided 
functions.  It  characterizes  men  like  Samuel,  Gad,  and 
Elijah,  Obadiah,  Amos,  and  Jonah  as  being  like  Moses, 
which  would  set  everybody  to  thinking  of  more  respects 
in  which  they  were  quite  unlike  him.  It  speaks  of 
a  prophet,  has  the  office  principally  in  mind,  when  more 
than  a  score  and  a  half  of  them,  differing  from  one 
another  as  widely  as  Elisha  and  Jeremiah,  had  already 
appeared,  whose  activities  had  extended  over  a  period 
of  five  hundred  years.  It  offers  as  a  criterion  to  prove 
the  claims  of  such  as  might  give  themselves  out  for 
prophets,  the  fulfilment  or  non-fulfilment  of  their  pre- 
dictions ;  when  such  seers  of  the  distant  future  as 
Isaiah  and  Micah  were  then  upon  the  stage,  for  whom 
so  specific  a  test  would  have  been  as  inapjoropriate  as 


146        TJic  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

it   was    fitting   for   the    sporadic    prophets    and    their 
imitators  in  the  early  days. 

We   meet   next,    in   the    series   of   laws    now   under 
review,   with  one  against    the  i-emoving  of  landmarks 
(Deut.  xix.  14)  :  "Thou  shalt  not  remove  the  boundary 
line  of   thy  neighbor  which   those   going  before  have 
placed   as  a  boundary  in  thy  inheritance  which   thou 
shalt  inherit  in  the  land  the  Lord  thy  God  is  giving 
thee  for  a  possession."     The  reference,  plainly,  is  to 
the  fraudulent   displacement  of   boundaries  separating 
one's  landed  property  from  that  of  his  neighbor.     How 
serious   a   breach  of   equity  it   was   regarded   may  be 
inferred  from  the  circumstance  that  it  is  one  of  the  acts 
singled  out  in  the  27th  chapter  of  this  book  for  special 
execration.     The  important  point  now  to  be  considered, 
however,  is  a  supposed  anachronism  of  the  writer  in 
representing    Moses   as   saying,    "which    those    going 
before  have  set  as  a  boundary."     The  clause  is   ren- 
dered by  some,  "which  the  forefathers,"  or  "thy  fore- 
fathers   set    as    a    boundary,"   and   it    is    accordingly 
regarded  as  a  clear  lapsus  pcnncs  of  our  ^?/«.fz-legislator 
of  the  exodus.     But  there  is  not  only  no  necessity  for 
this  rendering,  there  is,  as  it  seems  to  us,  no  propriety 
in    it.     The   word   in   question    is   found   without    the 
article  or  any  pronominal  or  other  limitation.     It  means 
simply  "  predecessors,"  and  might  justly  be  employed 
in  such  a  connection  by  one  who  was  legislating  not  for 
any  particular  emergency,  but  for  the  whole  future  of  the 
covenant  people.     That  it  is  used  in  this  sense  here  and 
not  in  that  of  "  forefathers  "  who  had  already  departed, 
the  context    is    conclusive   proof.     The    "boundaries" 
spoken  of  are  those  of  the  land  which  the  Lord  their 
God  is  "on  the  point  of  giving  them."     This  participle 
is  as   characteristic  a  feature  of  all  references  to  the 


Laivs  Pcc.t'.iar  to  Dcuttvonomy.  1 47 

land  of  Canaan  in  our  code  as  yibhchar  is  of  the  formula 
by  which  the  central  sanctuary  is  designated.  The 
criticism  that  would  impute  to  our  lawgiver,  whoever 
he  may  be,  the  folly  of  expressing,  within  the  limits  of 
a  single  verse,  ideas  so  contradictory  as  that  the  Israel- 
ites had  long  been  settled  in  Canaan,  and  that  they  had 
not  yet  entered  it,  condemns  itself. 

To  possess  and  occupy  Canaan  meant  a  long  and 
bitter  conflict.  It  is  natural,  therefore,  to  find  no 
inconsiderable  part  of  our  code  devoted  to  military 
operations  and  rules  of  war.  How  captives  are  to  be 
treated,  cleanliness  in  camp,  what  cities  are  to  be 
spared  and  what  destroyed,  the  demolition  of  heathen 
shrines,  —  these  are  some  of  the  timely  topics  treated 
by  our  lawgiver  on  the  eve  of  the  conquest.  Of  a  like 
nature  is  the  one  we  now  take  up  regarding  preparation 
for  battle  (Deut.  xx.  1-9;  xxiv.  5).  It  is  most  unique  in 
character,  and  bears  in  every  part  the  evidence  of  strict 
historic  truthfulness. 

First,  there  is  an  appeal  for  courage  in  view  of  supe- 
rior numbers  and  strength.  He  who  had  brought  them 
out  of  Egypt  would  be  with  them.  Should  they  see 
horses  and  chariots,  they  were  not  to  be  afraid  of  them. 
Afraid  of  horses  and  chariots !  Childish  admonition  if 
it  be  not  childlike  and  genuine !  In  Hezekiah's  and 
in  Josiah's  time  the  land  already  swarmed  with  them. 
Ahab  alone  was  master  of  a  good  two  thousand  chariots 
of  war  (cf.  Is.  ii.  7). 

Next,  the  very  process  of  entering  on  a  campaign  is 
simply  detailed.  It  is  assumed,  in  harmony  with  Num- 
bers (i.  3),  that  the  whole  male  population  over  twenty 
years  of  age  and  capable  of  bearing  arms  is  at  the  place 
of  muster.  It  is  assumed,  further,  in  accord  with 
instructions  of  the  same  book  (xxvi.  2),  that  full  lists  of 


148        The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin,  and  Strnctnfd. 

those  subject  to  military  duty  are  in  the  hands  of  the 
Shoterim.  It  is  also  assumed  that  a  priest  specially 
designated  for  the  purpose  "  the  priest,"  again  in 
dependence  on  the  Book  of  Numbers  (xxxi.  6),  where 
Phinehas  acted  in  this  capacity,  will  be  present  to 
hearten  and  inspire  the  host  with  his  trumpet  and  his 
brave  words.  It  is  assumed  that  the  Shoterim,  who 
have  the  muster-rolls,  are  empowered,  not  only  to 
address  the  assembled  levies,  retain  or  dismiss  at  will 
such  as  are  found  eligible  or  ineligible  for  active  service 
(with  V.  6  cf.  Lev.  xix.  3  f.),  but  also  to  divide  and  sub- 
divide them  into  battalions  and  companies,  set  them  in 
battle  array,  and  place  suitable  leaders  at  their  head. 

The  entire  arrangement,  in  short,  is  peculiarly  primi- 
tive and  appropriate  only  to  the  earliest  periods  of  the 
commonwealth.  After  the  rise  of  king,  court,  and 
mighty  men  of  war,  after  Sauls  second  year,  when 
three  thousand  chosen  men  were  made  the  nucleus  of 
a  standing-army,  especially  after  David's  day,  when 
royal  bodyguards  were  customary  and  foreign  mer- 
cenaries began  to  be  employed,  such  an  arrangement 
would  have  been  antiquated  and  impossible. 

The  treatment  of  hostile  cities  that  are  r.ot  of  Canaan 
is  also  made  the  subject  of  special  legislation  in  our 
code  (xx.  10-14,  19,  20),  and  the  manner  cf  its  intro- 
duction is  full  of  meaning.  The  lawgiver  had  just 
been  speaking  of  Canaanitish  cities,  wliich  in  sharp 
discrimination  he  refers  to  as  "  the  cities  of  these 
nations  here  "  (xx.  15),  that  is,  lying  over  against  their 
encampment  in  the  fields  of  Moab.  Vox  them  there 
was  one  law  of  procedure.  It  had  been  indicated  in 
previous  deliverances  to  which  he   now  refers   (v.   17). 

But  it  is  not  alone  the  peculiar  introduction  of  the 
subject  that  is  significant.     The  whole  outlook  of  the 


Laws  Pcadiar  to  Deuteronomy.  149 

legislation  is  equally  so.  With  what  propriety,  for 
example,  could  a  writer  of  King  Josiah's  time,  three 
hundred  years  after  the  division  of  the  kingdom,  a  hun- 
dred after  the  final  captivity  of  Israel,  when  many  %. 
fortress  of  Judah  was  already  in  possession  of  Assyrian 
troops,  in  the  midst  of  the  moral  decadence  and  politi- 
cal disintegration  that  are  reflected  in  the  prophecy  of 
Jeremiah,  preface  a  command  to  exterminate  the 
Canaanites  with  another  specifying  how  foreign  cities 
were  to  be  besieged  and  their  prospective  spoils  appro- 
priated ?  Especially  on  what  principles  of  psychology 
could  it  be  anticipated  that  under  circumstances  like 
these  a  romancing  legislator  of  the  later  day,  without 
a  hint  of  an  impending  catastrophe  tc  the  polity  and 
people  to  which  he  himself  belonged,  would  coolly 
bethink  himself  of  so  small  a  matter  as  the  fruit-bearing 
trees  that  might  be  growing  around  the  beleaguered 
towns  of  imaginary  foreign  foes,  and  sedulously  enjoin 
that  they  be  spared  for  food  ? 

In  the  ceremonial  oi  purification  for  murder,  the  mur- 
derer being  unknown,  recorded  in  Deut.  xxi.  1-9,  we 
have  a  remarkable  example  of  the  utmost  simplicity  of 
form  united  with  a  singularly  active  consciousness  of  the 
sacredncss  of  human  life  and  the  solidarity  of  human 
responsibility  concerning  it.^  Where,  but  amidst  the 
simplicity  of  primitive  times,  should  we  find  the  authori- 
ties of  different  cities  determining  jurisdiction  after  a 
method  so  rudimental  as  actual  measurement  ? 

The  entire  scene,  in  its  homely  picturesqueness, 
makes  the  impression  of  the  very  beginnings  of  political 
existence.  The  gathering  by  a  perennial  stream,  an 
appointed  substitute  for  the  unknown  criminal  in  lead- 
ing, the  handwashing  in  token  of  non-complicity  with 
the    crime,    the    touching    declaration    breaking    into 

I  Cf.  Gen.  iv.  lo,  the  Jehovist;  ix.  6  (PC). 


1 50       The  Peniateuck :  lis  Origin  and  Structure. 

prayer  :  "  Our  hands  shed  not  this  blood  and  our  eyes 
saw  not  the  deed.  Forgive,  O  Jehovah,  thy  people 
Israel,  whom  thou  hast  redeemed,  and  lay  not  innocent 
blood  to  the  charge  of  thy  people  Israel,"  are  all  of  the 
same  simple  character.  If  at  first  we  seem  to  be  wit- 
nessing a  sacrifice  (cf.  kdpJiar,  v.  8),  we  soon  find  that 
this  is  not  the  case.  The  fundamental  elements  of 
a  sacrifice  are  wanting.  There  is  no  altar.  The  blood 
is  not  shed.  The  victim's  neck  is  simply  broken  (cf. 
Ex.  xiii.  13).  It  is  an  execution.  Justice  has  done  its 
work  as  far  as  it  is  possible  to  do  it  under  these  circum- 
stances. The  murdered  man  has  been  avenged  by  the 
whole  community  acting  as  his  kinsman.  The  same 
form  of  words,  in  fact,  that  in  a  previous  chapter 
brought  to  a  close  the  execution  of  a  wilful  homicide 
(xix.  13)  also  concludes  this  ceremony. 

The  next  two  topics  treated  in  the  independent  code 
of  Deuteronomy,  that  of  female  captives  (xxi.  10-14) 
and  a  disobedient  son  (xxi.  18-21),  offer  but  indefinite 
indications  of  their  age.  Still,  the  former  implies  a 
state  of  things  like  that  which  existed  only  on  the  eve 
of  the  conquest  and  for  a  short  time  after  it.  The 
captives  referred  to  cannot  be  Canaanitish  women  with 
whom  marriage  was  forbidden  ;  and  the  acquisition  of 
foreign  territory  and  spoils,  as  we  have  seen,  ceased  to 
be  a  subject  of  aspiration,  and  could  not  have  been  one 
of  legislation,  after  the  reign  of  David ;  while  the 
latter  harmonizes  perfectly  with  its  historic  surround- 
ings as  well  as  with  the  other  codes  with  which  it  is 
associated  (Ex.  xxi.  17;  Lev.  xx.  9),  and  seems  to  be 
definitely  referred  to  in  some  passages  of  the  Chokma 
literature.  (Prov.  xix.  18,  falsely  rendered  in  the  A.  V. : 
cf.  XXX.  17;  Ecclus.  iii.  1-16).^ 

1  It  is  an  interesting  fact,  and  not  without  significance,  that  the  old  Babylonian  family 
customs  were  very  similar  to  those  here  indicated.     If  a  son  refused  to  obey  his  father  of 


Laws  Peculiar  to  Deuteronomy.  151 

A  peculiar  regulation  concerning  tJie  bodies  of  persons 
who  had  been  hanged  is  met  with  in  Deut.  xxi.  22,  23.  It 
is  enjoined  that  they  be  buried  on  the  day  of  execution, 
in  order  that  they  may  not  pollute  the  land.  While  in 
itself  containing  nothing  out  of  harmony  with  a  supposed 
Mosaic  date,  there  is  a  positive  confirmation  of  such 
date  in  the  Book  of  Joshua.  In  two  notable  instances 
this  appointed  successor  of  Moses  is  reported  as  acting 
in  studied  consistency  with  this  law  (viii.  29;  x.  27).  It 
is  true  that  much  of  the  Book  of  Joshua  is  alleged  to 
have  been  written  by  the  author  of  Deuteronomy,  but 
these  two  passages  are  not  included  by  the  majority  of 
critics  in  that  part  of  it,  but  admitted  to  be  among  its 
oldest  portions.^ 

The  law  requiring  that  in  the  case  of  building  "a  new 
house"  a  parapet  for  safety  be  made  around  the  roof 
(xxii.  8)  might  imply  either  previous  and  customary  life 
in  tents,  or  that  the  new-comers  would  find  in  Canaan 
houses  already  built,  as,  in  fact,  is  directly  stated  else- 
where (xix.  i).  An  occasion  for  the  introduction  of  the 
subject  here  may  possibly  have  been  the  fact  that  the 
tribes  of  Reuben,  Gad,  and  the  half-tribe  of  Manasseh, 
were  then  in  process  of  providing  homes  for  their  fami- 
lies and  shelter  for  their  flocks  east  of  the  Jordan 
^^um.  xxxii.  16)  antecedent  to  the  passage  of  the  river. 

Among  the  many  provisions  of  the  Deuteronomic 
code  inculcating  humanity,  or  conceived  especially  in 
"i.  humane  spirit,  is  that  regarding  a  complaint  of 
unchastity  previous  to  marriage,  preferred  by  a  husband 
against  a  newly  married  wife  (xxii.  13-21).  One  main 
object  of  it  seems  to  have  been  to  protect  an  otherwise 
helpless  woman  against  the  brutality  of  a  selfish  and 

his  7Hother,  various  severe  punishments  might  be  visited  upon  him,  even  to  selling  him 
as  slave.     Cf.  Hommel,  ibid.  p.  416. 
1  See  Kleinert,  ibid.  p.  96  f. 


152        TJie  PentateucJi :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

unscrupulous  lord  to  whom  she  was  legally  bound. 
The  rigorous  punishment  inflicted  on  the  plaintiff,  if  he 
failed  to  make  out  his  case,  the  fine  (cf.  Ex.  xxi.  22),  the 
beating  (cf.  Deut.  xxv.  1-3),  and  the  denial  of  the  right 
of  future  separation  on  any  terms  (xxiv.  1-4),  bring  the 
statute  into  line  with  other  enactments  of  the  present 
code  and  bespeak  for  it  the  same  origin. 

An  extended  law  for  a  somewhat  similar  case  is  found 
in  Numbers  (v.  11-31) ;  but  the  legal  process  is  wholly 
dissimilar,  and  the  complaining  husband  there  goes 
unpunished.  Riehm  holds  ^  that  in  the  codification  of 
the  Deuteronomic  law  we  have  evidence  that  the  one 
found  in  Numbers  was  already  considered  antiquated, 
and  that  hence  the  former  belongs  to  a  much  later 
period.  But  the  two  cases  are  different  enough  in  their 
nature  to  require  different  laws.  Both  of  the  laws  are 
apparently  based  on  old-time  customs.  The  Deuter- 
onomic seems  to  be  more  changed,  and,  possibly,  with 
special  reference  to  that  of  Numbers,  supplementing  it, 
as  it  were,  with  the  needed  moral  background  and 
standard  by  which  a  one-sided  application  might  be 
avoided.  Without  superseding  it  for  the  special  case  it 
had  in  view,  it  emphasizes  in  its  heavy  penalties  for  the 
baseless  slanders  of  a  husband  a  principle  of  equity 
there  unrecognized,  but  which,  expressed  or  unex- 
pressed, should  always  be  understood  to  rule  in  similar 
circumstances. 

Israel  was  considered  as  forming  a  peculiar  congrega- 
tion  {qdJidl)  ^  of  the  Lord,  and  it  is  not  strange  that  we 

1  Gesetzgebung,  etc.  p.  67. 

2  This  term  is  found  nowhere  else  in  the  Pentateuch  except  in  Num.  xvi.  3 ;  xx.  4, 
where  it  is  used  in  the  one  instance  by  the  promoters  of  Korah's  rebellion  and  in  the 
other  by  the  people  who  murmur  at  Moses  in  the  wilderness  of  Zin.  In  itself,  it  is 
thought  to  indicate  a  late  origin  for  a  document  in  which  it  occurs;  and  its  appearance  in 
Joel  is  one  of  the  reasons  given  for  assigning  that  work  to  the  period  of  the  exile.  But 
there  were  good  reasons  for  its  employment  in  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  under 


Lazvs  Peculiar  to  Deuteronomy.  153 

find  at  the  beginning  of  its  national  life  a  law  defining 
and  restricting  its  bounds  (Deut.  xxiii.  2-9).  With  a 
mixed  multitude  swarming  in  its  camp,  a  more  oppor- 
tune moment  for  such  a  law  than  just  before  the  con- 
quest there  could  not  well  have  been.  The  first  provi- 
sion concerns  persons  unmanned  by  castration  or  other 
mutilation  of  the  reproductive  organs.  Held  in  honor 
by  contemporaneous  people,  they  failed  to  meet  the 
totality  of  the  divine  claim  ;  as  they  were  unable  also, 
in  some  instances,  to  comply  with  the  requisition  of  the 
Abrahamic  covenant  whose  seal  was  circumcision. 

Yet  such  a  law  would  scarcely  have  been  suggested 
to  the  imagination  of  a  man  eight  centuries  later.  Even 
Samuel  mentions  eunuchs  as  among  the  prospective 
servants  of  Israelitish  kings  (i  Sam.  viii.  15).  And  so 
we  find  them  at  the  court  of  Ahab  (i  Kings  xxii.  9),  of 
Joram  (2  Kings  viii.  6;  ix.  32),  and  in  the  kingdom  of 
Judah  employed  with  honor  by  the  very  successor  of 
Josiah  (2  Kings  xxiv.  12,  15).  Israelites,  it  is  likely, 
they  were  not ;  but  foreign  slaves.  Still  their  employ- 
ment is  no  slight  symptom  of  altered  circumstances. 
And  we  are  not  surprised  to  see  Isaiah  (Ivi.  3  ff.)^ 
advancing  to  a  far  more  spiritual  view,  making,  in  fact, 
the  transition  to  that  new  economy  in  which  the 
queen  of   Ethiopia's   eunuch  becomes  a  distinguished 

trophy  of  this  same  "  ecclesia  of  the  Lord." 

From  a  special  subordinate  class,  our  law  goes  on  to 

the  historical  circumstances  mentioned;  and  there  is  no  good  reason  why,  later,  Moses 
should  not  himself  have  adopted  the  word  and  filled  it  with  a  better  spirit.  Moreover,  the 
principle  that  rules  in  this  whole  section  is  thoroughly  Lcvitical.  Its  requirements  are  quite 
analogous  to  those  respecting  the  qualifications  of  a  priest  (Lev.  xxi.  17  ff.),  as  also  of  all 
offerings  made  to  the  Lord  (xxii.  18  f.  24).  And  it  is  not  the  first  time  that  the  Deuter- 
onomic  code  has  shown  a  marked  advance  beyond  that  of  the  middle  books  in  the  senti- 
ment that  Israel  was  to  be  a  consecrated,  priestly  nation  (with  Lev.  xvii.  15  cf.  Deut. 
xiv.  21). 

^  Schultz  (Das  Deuteronomium  erkVdri,  p.  569)  has  called  attention  to  the  coloring  of 
the  language  in  the  context  of  Isaiah  as  seeming  to  show  a  dependence  on  Deuteronomy 


154       TJic  PcntateiicJi :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

mention  nationalities  that  are  eligible  or  ineligible  to 
the  privilege  of  Jewish  citizenship.  And  here  the 
impress  of  its  time  upon  the  document  becomes  still 
more  decided.  The  attitude  assumed  by  our  lawgiver 
toward  these  nations  does  not  seem  unnatural,  if  he  be 
Moses.  But  no  writer  in  his  senses  could  have 
seriously  taken  it  after  the  time  of  Solomon.  Because 
of  their  treatment  of  Israel  on  their  march  from  Egypt 
(Num.  XX.  i8  ff.  ;  xxii.  5)  the  Ammonite  and  Moabite 
are  forever  shut  out  from  citzenship  among  the  chosen 
people.  The  Edomite  is  admitted  to  it  after  a  short 
probation  ;  so,  too,  the  Egyptian,  —  the  former  on  the 
ground  of  kindred  blood,  the  latter  on  that  of  hospi- 
tality to  the  Hebrew  strangers. 

Turn  now  to  the  earliest  prophets.  There  is  scarcely 
one  of  them  who  is  not  found  facing  in  a  contrary 
direction.  So  it  is  with  Hosea  (vii.  16;  viii.  13),  with 
Joel  (iv.  19),  with  Amos  (iii.  9),  and  especially  Isaiah,  in 
the  first  forty  chapters  of  whose  prophecy  there  are 
nearly  as  many  denunciations  of  Egypt.  And  Edom  ! 
Considering  their  historical  relations  to  Israel,  nothing 
could  be  more  friendly  than  the  tone  in  which  our  law 
alludes  to  them.  But  we  find  absolutely  no  echo  of  it 
in  any  subsequent  period,  even  down  to  the  time  of  the 
Maccabees  (i  Mace.  vi.  31).  Saul  fought  with  them 
(i  Sam.  xiv.  47)  ;  David,  for  a  time,  made  them  tribu- 
tary (2  Sam.  viii.  14).  Under  Joram  they  regained 
their  independence.  They  were  the  heartiest  allies  of 
Syria  and  Ephraim  against  Ahaz  {circa  B.C.  740)  ;  and 
never  did  their  traditional  hatred  show  itself  more  con- 
spicuously than  in  the  siege  and  capture  of  Jerusalem 
(B.C.  588),  when,  in  the  language  of  the  Psalmist,  they 
cried  out :  "  Raze  it,  raze  it  to  the  foundation  thereof  !  " 
(Ps.  cxxxvii.  7).     All  the  more  important  prophets  from 


Laws  Peculiar  to  Deuteronomy.  155 

Obadiah  and  Joel  to  Ezekiel  hold  a  position  toward 
Edom  which  is  the  exact  antithesis  of  that  of  the  Deu- 
teronomic  law.  Which  one  of  them,  or  what  man  of 
their  time,  could  possibly  have  been  the  author  of  it  ?  ^ 

We  come  next  to  a  brief  regulation  touching  nma- 
way  slaves  of  foreign  masters  seeking  refuge  in  Israel 
(xxiii.  16,  17).  They  are  not  to  be  given  up,  but  allowed 
to  dwell  unmolested  wherever  they  will.  The  law  is 
stamped  with  no  indubitable  marks  of  Mosaic  origin. 
If  fitness  of  political  and  moral  relationships  is  to  be 
the  criterion,  it  might  be  adjusted  to  almost  any  age 
of  the  world,  from  b.c,  1800  to  the  present  time.  If 
a  theory  of  interpolations  is  to  be  allowed  free  play, 
there  is  many  a  period  of  Israelitish  history  subsequent 
to  Moses  when  it  might  have  been  fitly  interjected 
among  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch. 

But  why  may  it  not  be  Mosaic,  as  it  claims  .-•  It 
breathes  his  spirit.  It  is  most  apposite  to  the  circum- 
stances of  Israel,  as  themselves  fugitives  from  Egypt. 
It  harmonizes  well,  too,  with  the  oft-repeated  reference 
to  the  former  thraldom.  And,  happily,  the  monuments 
furnish  us  with  positive  evidence  that  such  a  law  would 
at  least  be  no  anachronism  at  the  time  of  the  exodus. 
In  an  extant  treaty  between  Rameses  II.  and  the  king 
of  the  Hittites,  one  article  relates  to  this  very  matter 
of  the  mutual  exchange  of  fugitive  servants.  That 
Moses  was  acquainted  with  this  fact,  and  intentionally 
forbade  what  it  as  positively  required,  we  need  not 
assert.      Enough    that    in    this    case    the    science    of 

>  We  finil  a  similar,  if  a  less  marked,  change  of  feeling  with  respect  to  Moab  indicated  in 
the  later  times.  The  story  of  Ruth  the  Moabitess  was  probably  written  not  long  after 
the  death  of  David.  The  scenes  it  desctibed  occurred  a  full  hundred  years  earlier  (Ruth 
i.  i).  And,  although  the  history  represents  this  people  as  more  or  less  inimical  to  Israel 
or  Judah  down  to  the  latest  pcriocK,  still  the  spirit  of  the  Book  of  Ruth  is  clearly  reflected 
in  the  great  prophet  of  King  Josiah's  day,  who,  after  predicting  their  overthrow,  declares: 
"  Yet  will  I  bring  again  the  captivity  of  Moab  in  the  latter  days,  saith  the  Lord  "  (xlviiL 
47,  cf.  xlix.  6,  7,  18). 


156       TJic  PeJitateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

archaeology  comes  promptly  forward  to  set  a  bound 
to  the  literary  fancies  that  are  so  inclined  to  run  riot 
among  these  ancient  records.^ 

Of  peculiar  historic  as  well  as  moral  interest  is  the 
Deuteronomic  lazv  of  divorce  (xxiv.  1-4).  The  form  in 
which  it  is  found,  the  character  of  much  of  the  legisla- 
tion with  which  it  is  associated,  as  well  as  the  very 
nature  of  the  case,  serve  of  themselves  greatly  to 
weaken  the  force  of  the  objection  that  it  is  too  devel- 
oped a  law  for  the  period  of  the  exodus.  Were  no 
weight  to  be  allowed  to  the  statement  in  Genesis  (ii. 
21-24)  for  the  genuineness  of  which  our  Lord  seems 
to  vouch  (Matt.  xix.  4,  5,  8),  that  monogamy  was  the 
original  and  designed  relationship  of  husband  and 
wife,  it  might  be  expected  that  the  relation  of  the  sexes 
would  be  one  of  the  first  and  principal  respects  in 
which  a  perverted  nature  would  manifest  itself.  And 
we  find  accordingly  that  cognizance  is  taken  of  it  in 
what  purports  to  be  the  earliest  history  and  the 
earliest  laws  (cf.  history  of  Abraham  and  the  seventh 
commandment). 

The  regulation  now  before  us,  in  fact,  might  be 
regarded  as  little  more  than  a  specification  under  the 
seventh  commandment.  It  is  remarkable  alike  for  its 
concessive  and  its  restrictive  character.  It  assumes  the 
prevalence  of  divorce  —  a  fact  also  recognized  in  a 
number  of  other  laws  of  this  and  the  Levitical  code 
(Lev.  xxi.  7;  Deut.  xxii.  19,  29).  It  assumes  that  it 
was  carried  on  with  some  degree  of  formality.  And 
such  a  custom,  with  the  form  it  took  of  giving  a  "  bill 
of  divorcement,"  our  law  does  not  forbid  ;  neither  does 
it  command  it.  Herein  our  Lord  corrected  the  Phari- 
sees' false  quotation  of  the  Pentateuch,  changing  their 
"  Why  did  Moses  command  1 "  into  "  Moses  suffered.'" 

*  See  Records  of  the  Past,  iv.  p.  31  f. 


Laws  Peciiliar  to  Denteronomy.  157 

In  its  restrictions,  on  the  other  hand,  the  law  assumes 
the  sacredness  of  the  marital  tie  and  provides  against 
an  obvious  tendency  to  break  and  renew  it  at  will.  Its 
sole  prohibition,  however,  is  of  the  remarriage  of 
divorced  persons  after  a  second  marriage  had  been 
entered  upon  by  the  former  wife.  This,  as  the  words 
"  after  that  she  has  been  defiled  "  (cf.  Num.  v.  20)  indi- 
cate, it  looked  upon  as  a  form  of  adultery  and  not  to  be 
tolerated. 

The  law  tends  directly  to  the  preservation  of  the  orig- 
inal tie  ;  and,  in  case  it  is  severed,  plainly  encourages 
a  single  life  in  view  of  a  possible  later  reunion.  It 
does  not  rise  to  the  plane  of  Malachi  (ii.  13-16),  who 
declares  that  God  "hates  putting  away."  But  neither, 
on  the  other  hand,  does  it  misrepresent  a  Moses  of  the 
exodus,  or  go  beyond  what  might  have  been  expected 
of  a  legislation  that  followed  and  flowed  out  of  the 
ten  commandments.^ 

Punishment  by  flogging  (Deut.  xxv.  1—3,  seems  to 
have  been  resorted  to  in  Israel  chiefly  for  gross 
offences  against  sexual  morality  (Lev.  xix.  20  ;  Deut. 
xxii.  18).  The  spirit  of  the  Deuteronomic  law  respect- 
ing it  is  thoroughly  national  in  its  recognition  of  the 
Israelitic  election  and  brotherhood.  At  the  same  time 
the  mode  of  inflicting  the  punishment  by  making  the 
offender  lie  flat  upon  his  face  is  thoroughly  Egyptian 
and  positively  out  of  harmony  with  the  later  rabbinical 
practice.^ 

Levirate  marriage,  legally  sanctioned  first  in  Deuter- 
onomy (xxv.  5-10),  had  no  doubt  prevailed  in  its  main 

1  The  last  remark  is  fully  supported  by  what  is  known  from  the  monuments  of  ancient 
Babylonian  customs.  If  a  man  would  separate  from  his  wife,  who  had  not  been  untrue  to 
him,  he  was  obliged  to  pay  her  a  sum  of  money  so  large  that  very  few  could  have  availed 
themselves  of  the  legal  right.     Cf.  Hommel,  ibid.  p.  417. 

'  See  The  Criminal  Code  of  the  Jews  according'  to  the  Talmud,  Massecheth  Synk^ 
drill,  by  Benny.     Lond.  1880,  p.  122  f. 


158       TJie  Pcntate7ich :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

features  from  the  earliest  times.  In  the  narrative  of 
Judah's  sin  with  his  daughter-in-law  (Gen.  xxxviii.), 
assigned  by  critics  to  the  document  JE,  we  find  the 
practice  already  in  force  to  the  extent  that  any 
breach  of  it  is  regarded  as  a  serious  crime.  Accord- 
ingly, the  Levitical  regulation  (Lev.  xviii.  16)  forbid- 
ding marriage  with  a  deceased  brother's  widow  is 
obviously  to  be  limited  to  cases  where  there  were 
children,  as  also  the  Jews  of  our  Lord's  time  under- 
stood it.i 

Not  only  is  our  law  in  its  place  in  the  age  of  Moses 
with  respect  to  that  which  goes  before  it,  but  also  that 
which  follows.  The  story  of  Ruth,  whose  scene  is  laid 
in  the  period  of  the  judges,  is  evidently  not  a  little 
modified  by  it.  The  detailed  proceedings  of  Boaz,  his 
singular  care  to  follow  a  certain  fixed  order,  his  appeal 
to  the  regular  legal  tribunal  of  his  city,  and  the  motive 
he  urges  for  his  conduct,  in  which  he  uses  almost  the 
very  language  of  our  code,  to  "raise  up  the  name  of  the 
dead  upon  his  inheritance,"  give  at  least  a  color  of 
probability  to  the  theory  that  the  law  of  Deuteronomy 
was  already  a  recognized  authority  in  Palestine. 

The  next  independent  ordinance  of  our  coAq  prescrib- 
ing punishment  for  a  gross  act  of  iniinodesty  on  the  part 
of  a  woman  (xxv.  11,  12)  offers  no  internal  characteris- 
tics by  which  its  age  might  be  even  approximately  fixed, 
unless  it  be  the  form  of  the  punishment.  The  offend- 
ing hand  was  to  be  cut  off.  It  is  the  only  instance  in 
the  Pentateuch  where  mutilation  is  directly  enjoined. 
So  unusual  and  severe  a  retribution  for  such  an 
act  would  scarcely  have  been  thought  of  in  the  later 
time. 

The  commission  for  the  destruction  of  Amalek,  found 

•  Versus  Riehm,  Gesetzgebung,  etc.  p.  68. 


Laws  Peculiar  to  Deuterono^ny.  159 

in  Deuteronomy  (xxv.  17-19),  there  can  be  little  doubt, 
refers  directly  to  Exodus  xvii.  as  its  basis  and  original. 
An  entire  clause  of  the  Hebrew,  and  the  most  essential 
one,  is  repeated  word  for  word.  The  appeal,  moreover, 
is  made  in  a  way  to  indicate  an  event  still  fresh  in 
remembrance  :  "  Remember  ^  that  which  Amalek  did  to 
thee  in  the  way  as  ye  came  out  of  Egypt."  Still 
another  side-light  appears  in  an  allusion  to  the  present 
circumstances  of  Israel :  *'  So  it  shall  come  to  pass  that 
when  the  Lord  thy  God  hath  given  thee  rest  from  all 
thine  enemies  round  about,  in  the  land  which  the  Lord 
thy  God  is  giving  thee  to  possess  as  an  inheritance, 
thou  shalt  wipe  out  the  remembrance  of  Amalek  from 
under  heaven  ;  forget  it  not." 

If  now,  on  the  other  hand,  we  follow  the  biblical  his- 
tory of  the  relations  of  Israel  to  Amalek,  subsequent 
to  this  supposed  period  of  the  exodus,  we  shall  see  how 
impossible  and  absurd  it  would  have  been  for  such 
directions  to  be  seriously  promulgated  as  late  as  the 
reign  of  Josiah  or  even  that  of  Solomon.  After  their 
first  defeat  in  a  sharply  contested  battle  with  Joshua 
at  Rephidim  (Ex.  xvii.  8-16),  we  find  them  joining  the 
Canaanites  in  a  successful  attack  on  Israel  at  Hormah 
(Num.  xiv.  43-45).  Later,  Balaam,  in  his  prophecy,  for 
some  reason  not  clearly  known,  hails  them  as  the  "first 
of  the  nations,"  but  predicts  their  total  overthrow 
(Num.  xxiv.  20). 

Another  hundred  years  follow,  and,  as  allies  of  the 
Ammonites  and  Moabites,  they  make  a  partially  suc- 
cessful foray  upon  the  coasts  of  Israel  (Judges  iii.  13). 
Then  Gideon  successfully  warred  with  them.  But  it 
was  not  till  the  days  of  Israel's  first  king  that  the  Pen- 
tateuch commission  really  began  to  be  executed.      In 

*  The  infin.  abs.,  like  the  emphatic  imperative  in  Greek,  Gesen.  §  131,  4,  b.,  is  used. 


1 60       TJie  Pentateuch  :    Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

two  great  campaigns  Saul  broke  their  strength,  wasted 
their  land,  and  put  to  death  their  king  (i  Sam.  xiv.  48; 
XV.  2-33). 

The  entire  history  of  this  war  is  pervaded  by  the 
spirit  of  the  ancient  code.  Samuel's  words  to  the  king 
are:  "Thus  saith  Jehovah  of  hosts:  'I  am  punishing 
(visiting  judicially,  \"npD)  that  which  Amalek  did  to 
Israel.  ,  .  .  Now  go  and  cut  off  Amalek  and  utterly 
destroy  all  that  he  has '  "  (Sam.  xv.  2,  3).  And  thor- 
oughly as  Saul  did  his  work,  it  did  not  satisfy  the 
terms  of  his  commission.  David  dealt  the  hostile 
remnant  a  heavy  blow  after  their  capture  of  Ziklag,  and 
in  Hezekiah's  time,  still  a  century  before  the  date 
assigned  by  some  to  the  Deuteronomic  code,  so 
reduced  and  feeble  had  they  become  that  five  hundred 
Simeonites  are  able  to  complete  their  overthrow  and 
extinction  (i  Chron.  iv.  43).  After  this  time  the  name 
of  Amalek  disappears  from  history. 

Our  code  is  brought  to  a  fitting  close  by  a  peculiar 
formula  of  acknowledgment  and  thanksgiving.  It  is 
professedly  given  to  be  used  immediately  subsequent  to 
the  conquest  and  quiet  occupation  of  the  promised  land. 
Critics  are  not  satisfied  with  this  account  which  the 
document  gives  of  itself,  and  see  in  its  strong  liturgical 
cast  positive  marks  of  a  later  day.  Kleinert,  however, 
among  others,  takes  exception  to  this  opinion  as  being 
unworthy  of  an  age  in  which  the  knowledge  of  the 
Vedas  has  ceased  to  be  a  monopoly.^  It  may  be  added 
that  such  an  objection  is  unworthy  of  an  age  that  has 
brought  to  light  the  stores  of  information  contained  on 
Egyptian  and  Assyrian  monuments. 

This  one  simple  liturgical  ceremonial  of  Deuteronomy 
we  are  able,  in  fact,  to  match  with  many  far  more  elabo- 

1  Das  Deuteronomium,  p.  104. 


Laws  Peculiar  to  Deuteronomy.  i6i 

rate  ones,  in  different  tongues,  that  date  from  even  an 
earlier  period.^  The  wonder  is,  indeed,  not  that  we 
have  this  one  simple,  prescribed  formula  of  thanksgiv- 
ing for  the  individual  Israelite  in  his  periodical  visits  to 
the  central  sanctuary,  but  that,  in  all  the  biblical  litera- 
ture before  the  exile,  it  stands  so  much  alone.  We 
have  really  nothing  of  a  precisely  similar  character  with 
which  to  compare  it.  And  in  view  of  the  consideration 
that  prayer,  in  some  form,  must  date  back  to  the  begin- 
nings of  human  history,  it  would  seem  the  height  of 
captiousness  to  characterize  the  ceremonial  before  us 
as  an  anachronism  in  the  age  of  Moses.^ 

Such,  now,  are  the  independent  laws  of  Deuteronomy, 
the  primary  and  essential  elements,  as  we  may  suppose, 
of  this  remarkable  code.  And  such  are  a  few  of  the 
more  patent  internal  characteristics  by  which  its  age  as 
a  whole,  and  in  its  several  parts,  might  be  approxi- 
mately inferred.  That  they  are  demonstrative  need  not 
be  held ;  that,  however,  they  show  an  overwhelming 
weight  of  probability  in  favor  of  Mosaic  origin  through- 
out cannot  well  be  denied.  Such  an  origin,  in  fact,  is 
directly  or  implicitly  claimed  by  the  great  majority  of 
the  statutes  brought  under  review,  and  especially  by 
those  that  are  of  chief  importance.  If  it  be  denied  in 
the  case  of  the  rest,  is  it  too  much  to  demand  that  ade- 

'  See  especially  an  inscription  from  the  tomb  of  Beni- Hassan,  of  the  12th  Egyptian 
dynasty,  in  Warrington's  Wheti  was  the  Pentateuch  IVrztien  ?  p.  18  f. ;  also  the  prayer 
of  Menkaura  to  Osiris,  dating  as  far  back  as  the  5th  dynasty  (Wilson's  The  Egypt  of  the 
Past,  Lond.  1881,  p.  93),  and  the  philosophical  precepts  of  Ptah-hotep  {ibid.  p.  107 
f.),  computed  to  be  five  thousand  years  old;  and  cf.  Rawlinson,  The  Religions  0/ the 
Aticieni  IVorld,  p.  60  f.,  and  24,  where  he  says  of  the  religion  of  ancient  Egypt  that  its 
"  worship  was  conducted  chiefly  by  means  of  rythmic  litanies  or  hymns,  in  which 
prayer  and  praise  were  blended,  the  latter  predominating."  For  still  other  specimens 
of  this  liturgical  worship  see  Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  ii.  pp.  105,  134;  vol.  iv.  pp. 
99-104;  vol.  vi.  pp.  99-101;  vol.  viii.  pp.  131-134. 

2  The  fact  that  the  first-fruits  are  to  be  brought  in  the  hands  in  a  basket  forestalls  any 
objection  that  might  arise  on  the  ground  that  we  have  here  prescribed  a  different  disposi- 
tion of  the  first-fruits  from  that  enjoined  in  another  place  (xviii.  4;  cf.  Num.  xviii.  12  f.). 


1 62       The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

qiiate  reasons  be  given  for  wrenching  them  from  the 
ancient  mould  in  which  we  find  them  imbedded  ?  ^ 

Mosaic  claims,  we  are  well  aware,  are  often  summarily 
dealt  with  in  these  days ;  but  sometimes  perhaps  with- 
out sufficiently  pondering  the  consequences.  The  alter- 
native here,  at  least,  does  not  lack  in  startling  effects. 
If  not  Moses,  then  some  one  who  would  be  thought  to 
be  Moses,  or  to  write  in  the  spirit  of  Moses.  In  either 
case,  an  antique  flavor.  Mosaic  sanction  is  wanted. 
But  why }  If  the  critical  theories  prevailing  in  many 
quarters  be  adopted,  there  was  no  Moses  who  was 
worthy  of  such  pains.  And  why,  especially,  such  an 
excess  of  Mosaic  coloring  in  a  purely  legal  document, 
so  that  it  might  almost  be  thought  that  the  laws  were  a 
conceit  to  magnify  the  half-mythical  hero,  instead  of  the 
name  of  Moses  being  used  to  give  weight  to  the  laws  "i 

If  not  Moses,  we  ask  again,  then  who?  Some  king 
of  Judah  or  Israel .''  The  history  furnishes  no  example 
of  a  royal  legislator ;  enough,  of  those  who  broke  and 
trampled  upon  the  laws  of  their  fathers.  Possibly,  some 
prophet  then  }  Which  prophet .?  His  modesty  in  con- 
cealing his  name  and  adopting  as  pseudonym  that  of 
the  leader  of  the  exodus  is  only  equaled  by  the  way  in 
which  he  introduces  the  subject  of  prophecy  in  his 
work,  as  incidental  to  a  law  regulating  magical  arts. 
But  why  not  a  priest,  possibly  Hilkiah  himself,  who 
first  introduces  our  code  to  the  attention  of  his  king .'' 

^  So,  too,  Bleek,  in  a  similar  connection  (Einleitungin  das  Alte  Testament.  Vierte 
Auflage,  bearbeitet  von  J.  Wellhausen,  Berlin,  1878,  p.  35)  :  "  Wir  sehen  also,  wie  ein 
bedeutender  Theil  der  Gesetze  und  Anordnungen  des  Pentateuchs,  sowohl  dem  Inhalte 
als  der  Form  nach,  dem  Mosalschen  Zeitalter  angehoren  muss.  Da  wir  nun  als  ein 
feststehendes  sicheres  Ergebniss  gefunden  haben,  dass  so  bedeutende  Theile  des  Gesetz- 
buches  von  Moses  herriihren,  dass  also  auf  jeden  Fall  das  Wesentlichste  der  darin  enthal- 
tenen  Gesetzgebung  ihm  angebort,  so  sind  wir  nicht  berechtigt,  ihm  einzelne  der  sich  darin 
findenden  und  auf  ihn  zuriickgefurhten  gesetziichen  Anordnungen  abzusprechen,  wenn  sle 
nicht  bestimmte  Spuren  eines  abweichenden  Characters  und  einer  spateren  Zeit  an  sich 
tragen." 


Laws  Peculiar  to  Deuteronomy.  163 

Critics  are  by  no  means  agreed  among  themselves 
whether  the  code  is  of  priestly  or  prophetic  origin  ;  it 
is  too  little  pronounced  in  either  direction.  Priestly, 
in  any  decisive  features,  it  is  far  enough  from  being  ; 
quite  the  reverse,  if  its  uniform  point  of  view  be 
taken  account  of. 

The  point  of  view  from  beginning  to  end  is  conspicu- 
ously that  of  a  tender  father  of  his  people,  emphatically 
Mosaic,  in  short,  and  nothing  else.  That  it  is  genuine, 
and  not  assumed  for  effect,  the  latest  results  of  biblical 
archaeology  unite  with  the  best  results  of  literary  criti- 
cism in  strongly  confirming.^ 

*  The  reasoning  employed  in  this  paper  to  show  that  the  independent  legislation  of 
Deuteronomy  is  Mosaic  bears  with  equal  force  against  the  theory  that  it  has  undergone 
any  special  revision  in  a  period  subsequent  to  Moses.  We  find  neither  in  form,  spirit,  nor 
language  any  valid  evidence  whatever  of  such  revision  in  the  series  of  laws  we  have 
passed  under  review. 


V. 

LAWS  REPEATED  AND  MODIFIED  IN 
DEUTERONOMY. 


It  is  absolutely  essential  to  the  scheme  proposed  by 
Wellhausen  for  the  reconstruction  of  the  Pentateuch 
that  the  code  of  Deuteronomy  be  found,  or  be  made,  to 
antedate  that  of  the  middle  books.  To  talk  about  the 
exile  as  the  period  for  the  elaboration  and  publication  of 
the  latter  on  any  other  hypothesis  would  be  the  height 
of  absurdity.  If  it  can  be  shown,  accordingly,  by  an 
actual  comparison  of  the  laws  of  the  two  codes  with 
one  another  and  a  minute  examination  of  each  law  by 
itself,  using  even  such  tests  as  our  critics  propose,  that 
there  is  not  only  no  necessity  for  such  a  transposition 
of  the  codes,  but  no  justification  for  it,  it  must  be  a 
fatal  blow  at  the  hypothesis.  Wellhausen's  supposed 
strong  position  would  be  completely  turned.  He  would 
be  exposed  to  a  raking  fire  on  both  flanks  which  it 
would  be  impossible  for  him  to  endure. 

I  have  already  pointed  out  in  my  second  paper  that 
such  critics  as  Ewald  and  Bleek  among  the  elders,  and 
Noldeke  and  Schrader  among  those  of  to-day,  have  never 
abandoned  the  ground  that  the  Deuteronomic  code  fol- 
lows and  supplements  the  others.  And  of  Dillmann  it 
cannot  be  said  that  this  is  not  his  position.  He  is  far 
enough  from  accepting  the  conclusions  of  Wellhausen, 
though  hesitating  with  respect  to  the  relative  order  of 
certain  collections  of  laws.     Here,  then,  is  a  nucleus  of 


Lazus  Repeated  and  Modified  in  Deuteronomy.     165 

scholars  and  reputable  critics  that  critics  and  scholars 
might  rally  to,  in  an  exigency,  with  considerable  confi- 
dence. Here  is  a  notable  defection  from  that  wide 
movement  to  revolutionize  Jewish  history  and  put  Ezra 
in  the  place  of  Moses  which  beginning  with  Vatke  and 
Reuss  has  culminated  in  Graf,  Kuenen,  and  Wellhausen. 
But,  fortunately,  we  are  not  looking  for  a  nucleus  to 
rally  to.  It  has  not  come  as  yet  to  the  question  of  a 
forlorn  hope.  So  far  this  is  simply  a  battle  of  theories. 
The  essential  facts  remain  what  they  always  have  been. 
All  parties  will  be  compelled  at  last  to  return  to  them. 
It  is  no  question  of  great  names,  nor  of  many  names. 
It  is  a  question  of  the  dispassionate  weighing  of  evi- 
dence, for  which  an  Englishman  or  an  American  is 
every  whit  as  capable  as  a  German  or  a  Frenchman  ; 
and  a  man  of  good  sense  and  sound  judgment  should 
count,  in  general,  for  as  much  as  the  university  pro- 
fessor. 

I  have  shown  in  the  third  paper  what  appears  to  me 
to  be  the  bearing  of  the  facts,  comparing  code  with 
code,  as  it  respects  some  of  the  most  fundamental 
assumptions  of  our  critics.  The  facts  do  not,  on  any 
fair  interpretation  of  them,  support  their  theory  respect- 
ing the  Israelitish  cultus  :  the  place  and  form  of  wor- 
ship, the  festivals,  the  priesthood  and  its  maintenance  ; 
that  is,  that  these  matters  were  a  product  of  slow  evo- 
lution rather  than  of  revelation,  that  they  were  grown 
in  Palestine  and  by  the  rivers  of  Babylon,  rather  than 
given  at  Sinai  and  in  the  Plains  of  Moab.  Quite  the 
contrary.  The  facts  when  allowed  to  speak,  untram- 
meled  and  unforced,  utter  a  unanimous  and  an  emphatic 
no  —  a  no  of  protest,  and  sometimes  of  repugnance, 
for  the  whole  strange  scheme  which  they  have  been 
used  to  substantiate. 


1 66       The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

In  my  fourth  paper  attention  has  been  given  exclu 
sively  to  such  laws  as  are  peculiar  to  Deuteronomy, 
They  have  been  subjected,  each  by  itself,  to  a  rigid 
and,  as  I  believe,  unpartisan  examination.  So  far  as 
they  had  anything  communicable  on  the  subject  in 
hand,  their  response  was  evidently  without  reluctance 
and  without  reserve.  And  nearly  all  had  something 
to  communicate.  With  simpHcity  and  directness  they 
uniformly  bore  testimony,  in  fact,  to  an  origin  in  the 
exodus  period.  Counter  -  evidence  there  was  none 
distinguishable. 

And  now,  before  proceeding  to  collate  the  testimony 
of  the  remaining  laws  of  Deuteronomy,  let  attention  be 
directed,  for  a  moment,  to  a  marked  characteristic  of  all 
the  laws  of  this  book  as  well  as  the  historical  matter 
with  which  they  are  associated.  I  refer  to  the  intellec- 
tual and  moral  stage  of  development  which  they  pre- 
suppose and  demand  in  the  people  whose  laws  they  are. 
It  is  clearly  a  people  who  are  acquainted  with  law  and 
accustomed  to  its  restraints.  Moreover,  they  seem  to 
be  familiar  with  laws  of  this  peculiar  sort,  where  the 
civil  is  nowhere  sharply  distinguished  from  the  reli- 
gious :  with  a  state  that  is  a  church  and  a  church  that 
is  a  state,  the  two  institutions  being  merged  in  one  as 
they  never  have  been  so  completely  since.  That  is  the 
impression,  unmistakably,  which  laws  and  history  alike 
make  upon  us.  Let  them  explain  it,  who  would  make 
this  the  first  written  code  for  Israel  and  who  find  them- 
selves able  to  dispense  with  the  Pentateuch  as  a  record 
of  facts. 

This  can  be  no  horde  of  savages  who  are  here 
addressed.  It  is  to  be  taken  for  granted  that  they  are 
spoken  to  in  a  style,  and  reasoned  with  in  a  spirit,  that 
are  adapted  to  their  capacity.     This  book  with  its  laws 


Laws  Repeated  and  Modified  in  Deuteronomy.     167 

reflects,  in  some  good  degree,  as  our  critics  themselves 
must  admit,  the  national  attainment  at  the  period  when 
it  originated.  Then,  it  was  a  most  extraordinary- 
attainment,  to  which  the  history  of  the  period  offers  no 
parallel !  We  find  religious  beliefs,  habits  of  thought 
respecting  social  matters,  depth  of  feeling,  a  conscious- 
ness apparently  responsive  to  the  highest  motives,  an 
accepted  ethical  system  not  yet  antiquated,  that  with- 
out some  such  training  as  we  are  told  Israel  actually 
had  after  the  escape  from  Egypt  would  be  unaccount- 
able. If,  in  short,  you  take  away  the  laws  and  the 
history  that  precede  Deuteronomy  in  the  Pentateuch, 
you  take  away  the  very  thing  and  the  only  thing  that 
can  make  Deuteronomy  intelligible  to  us.^ 

'  This  matter  was  so  well  stated  by  Isaac  Taylor  ( The  Spirit  of  Hebrew  Poetry,  New 
York,  1862,  pp.  169  ff.)  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago,  that  it  will  bear  repetition  some- 
what at  length.  "  There  is  much  more  in  the  last  book  of  the  Pentateuch  than  in  the 
preceding  four —  regarded  as  a  ground  and  moral  condition  of  the  Hebrew  people  of  that 
time;  for  it  consists  of  a  series  of  popular  addresses,  orally  delivered;  and  these,  by  the 
calm  majesty  of  the  style  throughout,  by  the  remonstrant  tone,  by  innumerable  allusions  to 
events  and  usages,  carry  with  them  a  demonstration  of  historic  verity  which  no  ingenuous 
and  cultured  mind  will  fail  to  admit.  .  .  .  The  Israelite  of  that  time  was  such  that  to  him 
might  be  propounded,  intelligently,  the  sublime  theology  and  the  rightful  and  truthful 
ethics  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy;  which  have  held  their  place,  unrivaled,  as  Institutes 
of  Religion,  from  age  to  age.  What  is  our  alternative  on  this  ground?  This  book  is 
either  '  from  heaven,'  in  its  own  sense,  or  it  is  from  man.  If  from  heaven,  then  a  great  con- 
troversy reaches  its  conclusion,  by  admission  of  the  opponent;  but  if  from  man,  then  the 
people  among  whom  this  theology,  and  these  ethical  principles,  and  these  institutions 
spontaneously  arose,  and  to  whose  actual  condition  they  were  adapted,  were  a  people  far 
advanced  beyond  any  other,  even  of  later  times,  in  their  religious  conceptions,  in  their 
moral  consciousness,  in  their  openness  to  remonstrance,  and  their  sensibility  toward  some 
of  the  most  refined  emotions  of  domestic  and  social  life.  .  .  .  Our  question  is.  What 
were  these  people,  or  wArtjf  Aa(^ /AO' ^'^''"'"'^  i"  consequence  of  their  Egyptian  sojourn? 
what  in  consequence  of  the  discipline  of  the  desert?  What,  upon  a  new  generation,  had 
been  the  influence  of  the  Sinaitic  law,  and  of  tabernacle  worship,  and  of  the  tribune 
administration  of  social  order?  Prospective  as  were  many  of  the  Mosaic  injunctions, 
social  and  ecclesiastical,  the  theology  was  ripe  and  entire,  from  the  first;  so  were  the 
ethical  principles,  and  so  was  the  worship.  The  generation  which  then  reached  maturity 
along  with  all  of  younger  age,  from  infancy  upward,  were  the  product  of  this  religious 
and  social  training.  .  .  .  The  Mosaic  homilies  arc  available  as  indirect,  yet  conclusive, 
evidence  of  a  true  theistic  habitude  of  mind  among  the  people  of  the  ExoduS.  .  .  .  They 
must  have  been  a  people  with  whom  there  had  been  matured  a  settled  usage  of  theistic 
terms,  devout  habitudes,  and  withal  a  diffused  warmth  of  those  social  sentiments  which 
are  consequent  upon,  and  which  arc  the  proper  results  of,  an  expansion  of  the  domestic 
aflTections." 


1 68        The  PeiitateucJi :  Its  Orinii  and  Structure, 


i>' 


But  our  review  of  the  laws  of  Deuteronomy  is  not 
yet  complete.  There  are  still  others  among  them,  like 
those  treated  in  the  third  paper,  which  relate  to  topics 
common  to  the  legislation  of  the  middle  books.  Differ- 
ent laws,  or  a  different  recension  of  laws  on  the  same 
theme  !  What  an  opportunity  is  offered  for  the  discov- 
ery of  stratification  and  marks  of  epochs,  if  any  such 
exist  !     Which  is  the  original  form  .'' 

I  have  put  at  the  head  of  this  paper  the  result 
reached  after  careful  investigation.  The  laws  of  Deu- 
teronomy appear  but  as  an  authoritative  restatement, 
and  appropriate  modification,  of  those  that  immediately 
precede  them  in  the  Pentateuch.  The  Mosaic  tradition 
that  from  the  first  has  covered  and  hallowed  both  is 
abundantly  confirmed.  How  this  conclusion  has  been 
reached  I  now  proceed  to  show. 

Destncction  of  Idols  and  of  HcatJien  Shrines  in 
Canaan.  —  The  code  of  laws  found  in  Deuteronomy  is 
consistently  introduced  (xii.  i)  with  the  words  :  "These 
are  the  statutes  and  judgments  which  ye  shall  observe 
and  keep  in  the  land  which  the  Lord  God  of  thy  fathers 
giveth  thee  as  a  possession."  The  first  requirement  is 
no  less  so  (vs.  2-4)  :  "  Thou  shalt  utterly  destroy  all 
places  where  the  nations  whom  thou  drivest  out  serve 
their  gods,"  etc.  It  is  something  to  which  attention 
had  been  already  repeatedly  called  in  the  preliminary 
history  (iv.  15-19;  vii.  5,  25,  26),  and  to  which  the 
present  code  also,  under  another  form,  reverts  in  this 
and  a  subsequent  chapter  (xii.  29,  30;  xx.  18).  Such 
a  requirement,  moreover,  was  naturally  to  be  expected 
when  the  essential  character  of  the  Israelitic  religion  is 
considered  as  contrasted  with  that  of  the  Canaanites. 
That  it  is  found  in  all  phases  of  the  Pentateuch  legis- 
lation  will    not    surprise   us  when    we   reflect    on  the 


Laws  Repeated  a/id  Modified  in  Deuteronomy.     169 

extreme  difficulties  that,  notwithstanding,  always  at- 
tended its  execution,  even  down  to  the  exile  (Judges 
ii.  2;  viii.  24-27;  xviii.  ii  f .  ;   i   Kings  xii.  25  f.). 

The  Deuteronomic  form  is  somewhat  more  pictorial 
and  detailed,  but  it  is  no  more  emphatic,  than  that  of 
the  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  xxiii,  24;  cf.  vs.  33; 
xxxiv.  12-17),  or  that  of  the  middle  books  (Num.  xxxiii. 
51,  52),  and  covers  in  general  the  same  ground.  We 
have  alone  in  Deuteronomy  and  Exodus  an  allusion 
to  the  peculiar  image  of  Astarte,  falsely  rendered 
"groves "  in  the  common  version,  and  in  Numbers 
certain  forms  of  idolatry  are  mentioned  which  do  not 
appear  in  the  other  books.  But  as  the  former  does  not 
indicate  a  kind  of  false  religion  prevalent  only  in  the 
earlier  times,  so  the  latter  just  as  little  are  evidence  of 
a  later  origin  for  the  literature  containing  them. 

The  "Bamoth"of  Numbers  (cf.  Lev.  xxvi.  30)  are 
no  doubt  included  in  the  more  circumstantial  descrip- 
tion of  Deuteronomy  :  "  All  the  places  wherein  the 
nations  .  .  .  served  their  gods,  upon  the  high  moun- 
tains and  upon  the  hills."  And  while  the  word  mash- 
kith  (Lev.  xxvi.  i)  is  not  unknown  to  other  biblical 
books  (Prov.  xviii.  11  ;  xxv.  11),  the  thought  expressed 
by  it  here  in  connection  with  "  stone,"  whether  it  be 
that  of  an  engraved  stone  or  of  an  image  made  of 
stone,  can  only  suggest  the  rudest  forms  of  idolatry, 
which  would  hardly  have  been  first  introduced  at  the 
time  of  the  exile.  Here,  then,  while  we  find  the  three 
codes  differing,  it  is  without  disharmony.  Each  has  its 
peculiar  characteristics,  and  gives  in  its  own  way  the 
one  charge  against  the  idolatry  of  Canaan  ;  but  evi- 
dences of  conflict  or  of  widely  diverse  circumstances  of 
time  and  place  there  are  none. 

The     Worship    of    Moloch,  —  Moloch     (called     also 


1 70       TJie  Pentateuch  :    Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Molech,  Milcom,  Malcom,  in  the  Bible)  was  a  fire-god, 
allied  to  Baal,  and  the  tutelary  divinity  of  the  Ammon- 
ites. This  people,  as  such,  are  first  mentioned  in 
Deuteronomy  (ii.  20  ;  cf.  Gen.  xix.  38),  and  continued 
to  exist  as  a  distinct  nation  down  to  the  time  of  the 
Maccabees  (i  Mace.  v.  6).  In  just  what  the  worship  of 
Moloch  consisted  is  not  altogether  clear.  The  weight 
of  authority  inclines  to  the  view  that  children,  having 
first  been  put  to  death,  were  actually  consumed  by 
fire  in  his  honor.^ 

Now,  of  the  several  codes,  that  of  Exodus  has  noth- 
ing to  say  of  this  special  form  of  idolatry.  Deuter- 
onomy refers  to  it  twice  (xii.  31  ;  xviii.  10)  :  in  the  first 
instance,  however,  only  in  the  form  of  an  allusion  to 
a  horrible  and  apparently  well-known  custom  of  the 
heathen,  without  prohibiting  it.  In  the  second  case,  it 
is  prohibited,  but  in  the  most  general  terms,  and  as 
subordinate  to  another  and  the  principal  matter.  In 
neither  case  is  the  name  of  the  god,  which  must  have 
been  familiar  (cf.  Amos  v.   26),  so  much  as  mentioned. 

In  the  middle  books,  on  the  other  hand  (Lev.  xviii. 
21  ;  XX.  2-5),  the  law  appears  in  definite  shape,  and  the 
name  of  the  god  is  made  particularly  prominent,  being 
found  in  both  passages,  and  three  times  repeated  in  the 
longer  one.  Under  such  circumstances,  it  cannot  be 
doubtful  which  form  of  the  law  is  original ;  or  better, 
which  is  the  law,  and  which  the  warning  that  is  based 
upon  it.  That  of  Leviticus  is  presupposed  in  Deuter- 
onomy. As  a  statute,  the  latter  would  be  quite  too 
indefinite  without  the  other ;  in  fact,  it  would  be 
unintelligible. 

It  may  be  noted  also,  in  passing,  that  we  have  here 
in   Leviticus  itself  an  example  of  the  repetition   of   a 

*  Cf.  Dillmann,  Com.,  zh  loco;  and  Schrader,  s.t.  in  Riehm's  Handworterbuch. 


Laws  Repeated  and  Modified  ui  De7itero7t07ny.    171 

law  in  an  enlarged  form  —  a  proceeding  which  the  later 
critics  find  so  difficult  to  understand,  in  the  case  of 
separate  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  on  the  supposition 
that  they  all  originated  in  the  Mosaic  period.  It  is 
assumed  that  this  Levitical  legislation  belongs  to  one, 
and  that  a  late,  period.  Why,  then,  this  iteration 
within  the  space  of  two  chapters  .-• 

It  is  not  to  be  overlooked  that  with  the  Hebrew 
there  was  no  stronger  form  of  emphasis  than  just  such 
a  repetition.  In  this  case,  therefore,  as  in  others,  it 
was  with  them  no  literary  defect  to  repeat  a  law  which 
was  to  be  modified  or  amended,  or  to  repeat  a  law  with- 
out essential  change  to  which  special  importance  was 
attached ;  its  importance  was  thereby  only  the  more 
enhanced. 

We  find  moreover,  in  one  of  these  passages  (Lev.  xx. 
4,  5),  the  possibility  intimated  in  the  very  law  itself 
that  it  might  not  be  executed,  and  provision  made  for 
such  a  contingency.  With  what  propriety,  then,  can 
the  failure  to  execute  a  law  of  the  Pentateuch  be  con- 
sidered as  conclusive  evidence  of  the  non-existence  of 
that  law .'' 

Still  further,  there  is  abundant  evidence  that  the 
present  law,  whether  first  promulgated  in  Moses'  time 
or  in  Josiah's  time,  was  at  no  time  fully  obeyed,  up  to 
the  period  of  the  captivity,  and  even  later  (i  Kings  xi. 
5  ;  2  Kings  iii.  27  ;  xvi.  3  ;  Isa.  xxx.  33  ;  Jer.  vii.  31  ; 
Zeph.  i.  5). 

Destruction  of  Canaanitish  Cities.  —  With  a  regula- 
tion peculiar  to  itself  concerning  other  cities  on  which 
war  should  be  made  (xx.  10-15),  the  Deuteronomic  code 
combines,  also,  rules  of  warfare  to  be  observed  in  the 
case  of  the  cities  of  Canaan  (xiii.  13-19;  xx.  15-18,  19, 
20 ;  cf.  vii.    1-6).     In  this  particular,   however,   it  had 


1 72        Tlie  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

been  anticipated  by  the  previous  books  (Ex.  xxiii.  23, 
24,  27-33;  xxxiv.  12-16;  Num.  xxxiii.  50-56),  and 
while  repeating  for  substance  the  injunctions  there  laid 
down,  it  directly  refers  to  them  in  the  words  :  "  As  the 
Lord  thy  God  hath  commanded  thee"  (Deut.  xx.  18). 
It  might  be  claimed,  it  is  true,  that  this  citation  is  only 
of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant.  But  there  is  nothing 
gained  by  excluding  the  passage  in  Numbers.  It  con- 
tains nothing  new  or  peculiar  of  any  sort  by  which 
a  later  origin  could  be  predicated  for  it. 

The  Deuteronomic  law,  moreover,  plainly  distin- 
Sfuishes  in  its  introduction  between  a  new  and  an  old 
element  in  itself.  "Thus  shalt  thou  do  unto  all  the 
cities  very  far  off  from  thee,  which  are  not  ...  of 
these  nations  here.  [Note  the  correspondence  with 
the  supposed  situation  of  Moses.]  But  of  the  cities  of 
these  peoples  .  .  .  thou  shalt  save  alive  nothing  that 
breathes,  ...  as  the  Lord  thy  God  hath  commanded 
thee"  (vs.  15-17).  The  sweeping  form  of  the  com- 
mand, too,  agrees  better  with  Numbers  than  with  Exo- 
dus, where  a  gradual  driving  out  is  in  view.  "  By 
little  and  little  I  will  drive  them  out  from  before  thee, 
until  thou  be  increased  and  inherit  the  land  "  (Ex.  xxiii. 
30).  And  it  may  be  remarked,  incidentally,  that  this 
law,  in  any  of  its  three  forms,  would  be  an  anachronism 
in  any  period  of  Israelitish  history  subsequent  to  the 
time  of  David. 

Forbidden  Mourning  Customs.  —  In  Deut.  xiv.  i,  2,  we 
find  heathenish  mourning  customs  forbidden,  such  as 
shaving  the  head  and  cutting  the  flesh.  The  motive 
assigned  is  that  Israel  is  a  holy  people  to  the  Lord  their 
God,  and  has  been  chosen  by  him  for  a  peculiar  posses- 
sion from  all  the  peoples  of  the  earth.  Parallel  pas- 
sages are  alone  found  in  Leviticus  (xix.  27,  28  ;  xxi.  5, 


Laws  Repeated  and  Modified  in  De?ttero7tomy.     i  J 2) 

the  latter  for  the  priests),  and  they  show  no  essential 
differences,  certainly  none  that  indicate  a  later  origin. 
There  is  nothing,  indeed,  to  stand  in  the  way  of  the 
common  view  that  the  Deuteronomic  law  here  is  a 
repetition  of  the  Levitical  and  that  both  belong  to  the 
earliest  period.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  strongly  sup- 
ported by  the  marked  hortatory  and  rhetorical  charac- 
ter of  the  former,  nicely  harmonizing,  as  it  does,  with 
the  supposed  circumstances  of  its  promulgation. 

We  find,  moreover,  in  this  connection  a  striking  dis- 
proof of  the  position  that  the  code  of  Deuteronomy 
originated  in  Josiah's  time.  The  prophet  Jeremiah 
began  his  work  in  the  eleventh  year  of  this  king's  reign. 
And  yet  we  discover  numerous  passages  (vii.  29 ;  xvi.  6 ; 
xli.  5  ;  xlvii.  5  ;  xlviii.  37)  in  his  prophecy  where  the 
mourning  customs  —  here  so  emphatically  forbidden  — 
are  recognized  as  fully  in  vogue,  and  the  prophet's  atti- 
tude toward  them  is  by  no  means  such  as  it  must  nec- 
essarily have  been  if  they  had  been  the  product  of  his 
own  age,  or,  much  more  (as  some  suppose),  of  his  own 
pen.  It  is  simply  one  instance,  of  many,  where  a  law 
of  the  Pentateuch  had  so  far  fallen  into  disuse  that  even 
a  true  prophet  could  seem  to  act  in  almost  total  uncon- 
sciousness of  it. 

Food  as  Clean  and  Unclean.  —  The  long  passage, 
Deut.  xiv.  3-20,  treats  of  the  various  kinds  of  food 
which  the  Israelites  were  forbidden  or  allowed  to  eat, 
and  there  is  every  reason  for  believing  that  it  is  based 
on  the  still  longer  passage.  Lev.  xi.  1-2 1,  22-43,  where 
alone  in  the  Pentateuch,  outside  of  Deuteronomy,  this 
most  important  topic  of  the  ceremonial  law  is  dealt 
with.  Such  a  conclusion  is  forced  upon  us  not  alone 
by  the  minute  dependence  of  the  Deuteronomic  form  of 
the  law,  in  the  matter  of  arrangement   and  language. 


1/4       'r^^  Pentateuch:  Its  Origiji  atid  Structure. 

on  that  of  Leviticus,  but  also,  and  especially,  by  its 
noteworthy  variations.  For  example,  Deuteronomy, 
instead  of  saying  with  Leviticus,  simply,  that  all  quad- 
rupeds that  divide  the  hoof  and  chew  the  cud  may  be 
used  as  food,  proceeds  to  specify,  as  well  it  might  on 
the  entrance  into  Canaan,  a  number  of  varieties  under 
this  head. 

Then,  secondly,  while  faithfully  enumerating  the 
three  classes  —  quadrupeds,  fishes,  and  fowls  —  of 
Leviticus  prohibited  as  food,  it  omits  to  mention 
a  fourth  class,  reptiles,  eight  species  of  which  are 
forbidden  in  that  code.  Still  further,  it  passes  over  in 
silence  a  list  of  insects,  including  locusts,  that  in 
Leviticus  are  allowed  as  food.  Now,  both  the  additions 
and  omissions  are  significant,  being  precisely  such 
as  might  most  naturally  have  been  expected  under  the 
circumstances. 

In  Canaan,  into  which  the  sons  of  Israel  are  just  now 
passing,  the  quadrupeds  particularly  named  in  Deuter- 
onomy are  those  which  would  be  their  main  dependence 
for  food.  On  the  other  hand,  the  reptiles  prohibited  in 
Leviticus,  but  passed  over  in  Deuteronomy,  are  such  as 
in  their  new  home  they  would  have  neither  occasion 
nor  desire  to  eat.  While  the  several  varieties  of  locusts 
allowed  to  be  eaten  by  the  Levitical  legislation  (xi.  22, 
23),  and  the  following  details  (vs.  24-43),  ^^^  appar- 
ently left  unnoticed  in  Deuteronomy  for  the  reason 
given  by  Riehm,i  because  it  contents  itself  with  calling 
attention,  to  this  extent,  to  the  express  provisions  of 
the  old  law  as  found  in  Leviticus.  Indeed,  the  enlarge- 
ment in  Leviticus  is  devoted  merely  to  an  explanation 
of  what  is  meant  by  "every  creeping  thing  that  flieth," 
forbidden  in  both  codes.     At  least  the  practice  of  John 

^  Gesetzgebung Mosis,  etc.  p.  56. 


Laws  Repeated  and  Modified  in  Deuteronomy.     1 75 

the  Baptist  (Matt.  iii.  4)  shows  that  the  omission  in 
Deuteronomy  to  cite  locusts  as  permitted  food  was  not 
understood  as  an  interdiction  of  them.^ 

Anijnals  Eaten  to  be  Properly  Slaughtered.  —  With  the 
law  just  noticed  there  fitly  connects  itself  this  one  for- 
bidding as  food  the  flesh  of  animals  accidentally  killed 
or  dying  a  natural  death.  It  is  really  the  old  Noachian 
precept  (Gen.  ix.  4)  in  another  form,  which  forbade  eat- 
ing the  blood  with  the  flesh  (cf.  Deut,  xii.  16,  24;  xv. 
23),  and  which  was  held  by  the  Jews  of  later  times  to 
be  binding  on  all  proselytes  (cf.  Acts  xv.  20,  29 ;  xxi. 
25).  The  present  enactment  is  found  in  each  of  the 
three  codes,  but  with  considerable  difference  of  detail. 
The  differences  will  be  best  displayed  by  placing  the 
several  codes  side  by  side. 

Ex.  xxii.  30.                               Lev.  xvii.  15.  Deut.  xiv.  21. 

"  Flesh  iorii  in  the  field        "  Every  soul  that  eats  of  "  Ye  shall  not  eat  of  a  car- 

ye  shall  not  eat  ;  ye    shall     a  carcase  or  what  was  torn  case:  to  the  stranger  who  is 

cast  it  to  the  dogs.'^                of  wild  beasts,  be   he  citi-  in  thy  gates  thou  shalt  give 

zen  or  stranger,  .  .  .   shall  zV,  that  he  may  eat  it;  or  thou 

be  UTiclean  until  the  even-  mayest    sell  it  to    the  /or- 

ing."  eigner." 

One  thing  strikes  us  at  once  on  looking  at  these  laws, 
and  is  very  instructive  as  it  respects  the  form  of  the 
Pentateuch  legislation  as  a  whole,  that,  while  the  same 
general  principle  underlies  them  all,  there  has  not  been 

>  But  this  not  all.  An  evident  textual  variation  already  alluded  to  (see  p.  20  above) 
sets  almost  beyond  doubt  the  dependence  of  the  Deuteronomic  form  of  the  law  on  the 
other.  In  the  Levitical  code  (vs.  14),  according  to  the  common  version,  the  following 
species  of  unclean  birds  are  named:  "  the  vulture  and  the  kite,  after  its  kind."  In  Deu- 
teronomy (vs.  13)  these  become:  "  And  the  glede,  and  the  kite,  and  .he  vulture,  after  its 
kind."  If,  now,  we  place  the  original  words  of  both  codes,  as  they  appear  in  the  present 
text,  side  by  side,  we  shall  see  how  the  discrepancy  was  possible  and  most  likely  arose. 
A  copyist  read  in  Deuteronomy  r  for  d,  a  most  natural  and  not  infrequent  confusion  of 
letters;  and  then  he  added  the  word  for  vulture  in  its  phonetic  form,  since  being  found  in 
Leviticus,  this  species  could  not  be  properly  omitted  here.  The  Targum  of  Deuteronomy 
and  the  Vulgate  agree,  indeed,  with  the  present  text.  But  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch 
and  the  LXX.,  as  well  as  four  Hebrews  MSS.  cited  by  Kennicott,  read  in  harmony  with 
Leviticus,  "  the  vulture,"  as  the  first  species,  instead  of"  the  glede,"  and  it  seems  reason* 
ably  certain  that  this  was  the  original  text  of  both  codes. 


I  yG       The  Peiitataich :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

the  least  apparent  effort  made  to  bring  them  into  a 
merely  formal,  literary  harmony.  They  seem  to  have 
been  confidently  entrusted,  just  as  they  are,  not  only  to 
the  good  sense,  but  to  the  good  will,  of  contemporaries 
and  of  posterity.  Their  very  diversity  of  form,  like  the 
costumes  of  strange  peoples  mingled  together  in  the 
same  city,  often  enables  us  the  better  to  localize  them 
and  assign  them  their  true  place  in  the  history  of 
Israel. 

In  the  present  case  there  is  nothing  strange  in  the 
fact  that  the  more  technical  and  concise  Levitical  code, 
followed  here  by  Deuteronomy,  should  use  the  term 
"carcase"  instead  of  the  circumlocution  of  Exodus,  or 
that  it  should  otherwise  repeat,  as  not  overlooking  it, 
the  prohibition  in  its  original  form.  Again,  it  is  not 
singular,  but  quite  in  keeping  with  the  circumstances, 
that  the  law  in  its  Levitical  shape,  as  applicable  espe- 
cially to  life  in  camp,  should  put  both  citizens  and 
strangers  under  the  same  rule  ;  while  the  Deuteronomic, 
looking  toward  changed  conditions  in  Palestine,  takes 
on  a  considerably  milder  form  as  it  respects  the  latter. 
In  fact,  the  permission  to  sell  the  carcases  of  fallen 
animals  to  "  foreigners "  would  have  been  without 
special  pertinence  during  the  forty  years'  wanderings. 
Such  a  class  was  then  almost  entirely  wanting ;  while 
the  "stranger,"  that  is,  sojourner  and  possible  proselyte, 
belonging  to  a  wholly  different  category,  was  necessa- 
rily subjected,  as  we  have  seen,  to  Israelitish  laws. 

Moreover,  it  is  natural,  and  fully  answers  to  supposed 
historical  relations,  that  in  Leviticus,  the  law  for  the 
priest  alone  excepted  (xxii.  8),  there  should  be  a  letting 
up  in  the  severity  of  the  restrictions  imposed  in  the 
matter  before  us,  with  clear  reference  again  to  the 
difficulty  of  obtaining  food  of  any  sort  during  the  long 


Laws  ]R.epeated  and  Modified  in  Deuteronomy.     1 7/ 

sojourn  in  the  wilderness  ;  while  in  both  the  earliest 
and  latest  forms  of  the  law,  no  such  contingency  being 
directly  in  view,  the  prohibition  is  absolute.  For  it  is 
clear  that  mere  ceremonial  uncleanness,  from  which  one 
might  be  freed  by  simple  ablutions  in  water,  and  last- 
ing only  until  evening,  could  not  have  been  regarded  as 
a  complete  interdiction.  And,  finally,  it  is  no  surprise 
to  find  the  more  developed  form  of  the  law  in  Deuter- 
onomy, rather  than  Exodus.  It  is  true  that  both  alike 
are  of  the  nature  of  prohibitions,  but  it  is  only  this 
one  of  all  the  codes  that  makes  the  distinction  between 
Israelites  and  strangers.  This  shows  a  growth  in  the 
sentiment  that  the  people  of  God  were  to  be  a  holy 
people. 

TJie  Sabbatic  Year.  — The  term  "  Sabbatic  Year  "  is 
found  only  in  Leviticus  ;  but  there  is  no  doubt  that  the 
same  thing  is  referred  to  in  all  the  three  constituent 
parts  of  the  legislation  (Ex.  xxiii.  9-1 1;  Lev.  xxv. 
1-7;  Deut.  XV.  i-ii).  That  of  E.xodus  could  not, 
indeed,  be  properly  understood,  might  be  open  to  a 
wholly  false  interpretation,  without  the  limitations 
offered  by  the  code  of  the  middle  books.  That  of 
Deuteronomy  is  no  less  dependent,  being  really  a 
result  of  experience  in  the  practical  workings  of  the 
law.  For  the  temporary  release  of  a  poor  debtor  had 
come  to  be  demanded  from  the  circumstance  that 
during  the  Sabbatic  year  he  was  naturally  less  able  to 
meet  any  indebtedness  which  he  might  have  incurred. 

To  say,  with  some,  that  the  code  in  Exodus  recog- 
nizes no  absolute  period  of  rest  of  this  sort  for  the 
whole  people  and  land  at  once  is  to  overlook  the  con- 
text (vs.  12),  where  the  obligatory  rest  of  the  Sabbath 
directly  appears  as  the  norm  of  the  new  regulation.  It 
is  true  that  the  Levitical  code  positively  enjoins  rest 


I  y8       The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

on  the  seventh  year,  while  that  of  Exodus  does  so  only 
constructively  ;  nevertheless,  it  does  it.  The  command 
to  sow  the  fields  six  years,  taken  in  connection  with 
the  fact  that  one  might  not  harvest  crops  on  the 
seventh  year,  might  be  considered  an  indirect,  but  it  is 
no  less  a  real,  injunction  to  desist  from  agricultural 
pursuits  during  that  year. 

As  thus  considered,  the  three  forms  of  the  law  nicely 
fit  together,  like  so  many  mutually  dependent  pieces  of 
a  mechanism.  To  substitute  one  for  the  other,  or 
to  regard  them  as  representing  a  slow  development, 
the  form  in  Leviticus  being  the  final  outcome,  is  clearly 
impossible.  The  close  relation  of  Deuteronomy  to 
Exodus  here  is  shown  by  the  unusual  word,  rendered 
"  let  lie  fallow,"  occurring  in  both,  and  in  the  entire 
Pentateuch  only  found  in  these  sections ;  while  to  the 
code  of  Leviticus  it  holds,  as  we  have  already  inti- 
mated, the  relevancy  of  a  by-law,  intended  to  guard 
against  a  possible  evil  consequence  of  the  original 
enactment. 

It  may  be  observed,  moreover,  incidentally,  that  the 
Deuteronomic  tithe  enjoined  for  every  third  year 
(xiv,  28,  29)  seems  to  presuppose  the  institution  of  the 
Sabbatic  year  as  such.  Otherwise  there  would  be 
needful  a  double  system  of  reckoning :  one  on  the  basis 
of  seven  years  with  respect  to  the  year  of  release,  and 
one  on  the  basis  of  three  years  with  respect  to  the 
tithe.  Now,  the  two  exactly  harmonize  in  the  cycle  of 
seven  years,  the  special  tithe  falling  on  the  third  and 
sixth,  and  there  being  none  at  all  on  the  seventh,  year. 

Release  of  Hebreiv  Servants.  —  Associated  with  the 
Sabbatic  year  and  the  law  concerning  the  release  of 
debtors  we  find  an  enactment  relating  t-)  the  discharge 
of  Hebrew  servants.     As  a  rule  such  service  was  in 


Laws  Repeated  and  Modified  hi  Deuteronomy.     1 79 

repayment  of  debts,  the  meeting  of  which  was  other- 
wise impossible.  Each  of  the  three  codes  takes  cogni- 
zance of  the  matter,  devoting  to  it  nearly  the  same 
amount  of  space,  but  in  other  respects  having  many 
points  of  divergence,  though  all  are  within  the  bounds 
of  perfect  harmony  (Ex.  xxi.  2-6  ;  Lev.  xxv.  39-46 ; 
Deut.  XV.  12-18).  It  is  with  these  divergences  that  we 
have  here  principally  to  do. 

Exodus,  for  example,  speaks  only  of  Hebrew  men  as 
servants  ;  so,  too,  Leviticus.  But  Deuteronomy  speci- 
fies also  women  of  the  nation,  who,  in  a  similar  way 
and  for  a  similar  reason,  may  have  sold  themselves  into 
bondage  to  their  Hebrew  brethren.  The  first  code, 
again,  enjoins  that  after  six  years  of  continuous  service 
—  having  no  direct  reference,  however,  to  the  Sabbatic 
year  —  these  bondmen  are  to  go  free.  As  they  came, 
so  are  they  to  go ;  that  is,  without  compensation  from 
their  masters.  With  this  —  excepting  only  a  new 
period  of  release  to  be  hereafter  noted  —  Leviticus 
agrees.  Deuteronomy,  however,  as  in  the  former  case, 
has  an  important  addition.  Exactly  as  they  came  they 
are  not  to  go.  They  are  to  be  set  free,  but  not  sent 
away  emj^ty.  They  are  to  be  "loaded  down"  with 
gifts  from  the  flock,  the  threshing-floor,  and  wine-press, 
in  remembrance  of  the  fact  of  a  once  common  bondage 
in  Egypt. 

The  first  code,  still  further,  commands  that  in  case 
a  Hebrew  servant  elects  to  remain  permanently  in  the 
service  of  the  Hebrew  master,  a  contract  to  that  effect 
may  be  made,  slave  and  master  appearing  before  the 
Lord  (that  is,  the  priest  or  judge  who  represented  him), 
and  the  master  there,  against  the  post  of  the  door, 
boring  with  an  awl  the  ear  of  his  slave  as  a  symbol  of 
his  servitude.     Of  this  Leviticus  has  nothing,  another 


1 80        TJie  Pentate7icJi :  Its  Orizin  and  Stnicture. 


i>' 


limitation  already  hinted  at,  the  year  of  jubilee,  being 
in  view.  And  Deuteronomy,  properly  enough  from  its 
new  point  of  observation,  changes  it  in  so  far  as  that  it 
does  not  require,  in  the  ceremony  described,  appearing 
"before  the  Lord."  It  might  be  performed,  in  the 
case  of  menservants  and  maidservants  alike,  at  the 
owner's  house.  Now,  thus  far,  excepting  only  the  pro- 
vision respecting  the  year  of  jubilee,  whose  relations 
to  the  present  law  remain  to  be  considered,  there  is 
nothing  that  requires  any  disturbance  of  the  relative 
position  of  the  codes,  as  fixed  by  tradition  and  history. 
There  is  only  the  natural  expansion  in  Deuteronomy 
which  its  whole  spirit  and  the  alleged  circumstances  of 
its  origin  might  have  led  us  to  expect. 

As  yet,  however,  we  have  failed  to  notice  a  pecu- 
liarity of  Leviticus  besides  its  introduction  of  the  year 
of  jubilee,  which,  according  to  some,  shows  a  develop- 
ment beyond  the  plane  of  Deuteronomy.  It  forbids  in 
the  most  emphatic  language  treating  the  Hebrew 
brother  as  a  slave  (vs.  39,  42,  45).  It  is  not  for  a 
moment  to  be  forgotten  that  he  is  still  a  "  brother  of 
the  children  of  Israel."  I  have  called  this  a  peculiarity 
of  Leviticus.  It  is  so  only  in  outward  form.  The 
spirit  of  it  appears  just  as  clearly  in  Deuteronomy,  and 
the  form  in  which  it  is  there  clothed  is  not  one  whit 
less  striking  or  impressive.  He  is  to  be  enriched  with 
presents  on  the  ground  of  a  common  brotherhood  and 
a  former  common  thraldom  in  Egypt.  The  author  of 
Deuteronomy,  with  the  passage  in  Leviticus  before  his 
eyes,  might,  indeed,  have  consciously  and  deliberately 
chosen  so  to  express  himself,  putting  thus  in  the 
concrete  and  in  the  form  of  an  illustration  what  is 
there  abstractly  enjoined. 

But  how  is  to  be  explained  the  provision  of  Leviticu.s 


Lazvs  Repeated  and  Modified  in  Deuteronomy.     1 8 1 

that  a  Hebrew  servant  is  to  remain  with  his  master  till 
the  year  of  jubilee?  Is  it  not  a  clear  contradiction  of 
that  which  speaks  of  a  term  of  six  years  and  of  the 
so-called  perpetual  servitude  of  the  other  codes  ?  By 
no  means.  It  simply  offers  still  another  limitation  to 
the  principal  injunction  of  the  code,  showing,  in  fact, 
Jlow  it  tvas  related  to  the  year  of  jubilee.  The  obser- 
vance of  such  a  year  had  been  independently  enjoined 
(Lev.  XXV.).  It  was  to  forestall  possible  conflict,  not  to 
precipitate  it,  that  the  matter  is  here  treated.  The  law 
respecting  six  years  of  service  is  not  repealed,  but  so 
far  modified,  as  well  as  that  of  otherwise  life-long  servi- 
tude, as  that  both  kinds  of  service  should  terminate 
with  the  year  of  jubilee.^ 

To  suppose  that  the  Levitical  code  was  meant  to 
stand  by  itself,  as  a  later  form  of  the  other  two,  is  to  be 
guilty  of  the  absurdity  of  supposing  that  any  one  in 
that  later  period  could  be  capable,  in  the  face  of  his 
own  appeal  for  brotherly  consideration  and  leniency,  of 
condemning  a  Hebrew  servant,  willing  or  not,  to  serve 
out  the  whole  period,  long  or  short,  that  preceded  the 
year  of  jubilee.  Hence  the  only  reasonable  conclusion 
is  that  these  different  forms  of  the  law,  as  in  other 
cases,  were  simply  meant  to  supplement,  and  not  to 
obstruct  or  supersede,  one  another. 

Animal  Saerifices  to  be  Faultless.  —  The  Deuteron- 
omic  code  (xvii.  i;  cf.  xv.  21)  like  the  Levitical  (xxii. 
ig-27)  allows  for  sacrifice  only  such  animals  as  are 
absolutely  without  blemish.  The  same  general  term 
is  used  in  the  original  of  both  codes  for  blemish  ;  but 
the  Levitical  alone  gives  anything  like  a  detailed  list 
of  defects  to  be  reckoned  under  that  category.     How 

1  The  slave  then  received  back  his  forfeited  landed  property,  etc.,  and  there  was  no 
longer  any  occasion  for  his  being  a  slav«. 


1 82        The  Pentateuch:  Its  Ojngin  and  Structure. 

either  priest  or  layman  could  have  determined  what,  in 
the  eye  of  the  law,  constituted  a  blemish  without  some 
such  guide  as  is  furnished  by  the  legislation  of  the 
middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  it  is  not  easy  to  see. 
Deuteronomy  furnishes  only  a  hint  in  that  direction, 
and  in  its  almost  studied  generalization  seems  clearly 
to  presuppose  information  as  obtainable  from  other 
sources.  Malachi  (i.  8)  is  the  first  of  the  prophets  to 
refer  definitely  to  the  subject,  and  it  is  in  such  a  way  as 
to  give  anything  but  encouragement  to  the  theory  of 
a  post-exilian  origin  of  the  law  in  Leviticus. 

Oppression  of  the  Poor  and  Strangers.  —  A  series  of 
enactments  enjoining  kind  treatment  of  the  poor  and 
strangers  appears  in  each  of  the  several  codes.  All  are 
of  like  tenor.  That  of  Exodus  (xxii.  21-24)  treats  of 
the  stranger,  the  widow,  and  fatherless :  to  mishandle 
or  afflict  them  is  to  expose  one's  self  to  the  severest 
visitations  of  the  divine  judgments.  Leviticus  (xix. 
I3>  33>  34)  3.nd  Deuteronomy  alike  (xxiv.  14,  15  ;  cf.  xvi. 
19,  20)  direct  attention  particularly  to  hired  servants, 
whether  citizens  or  strangers  :  their  wages  are  to  be 
promptly  paid  and  they  are  to  be  in  nowise  oppressed. 
Both  the  latter  codes  are  remarkable  for  the  motives 
given  for  obedience.  The  former  says  (vs.  33):  "The 
stranger  that  dwelleth  with  you  shall  be  as  one  born 
among  you ;  .  .  .  for  ye  were  strangers  in  the  land 
of  Egypt."  The  latter  (vs.  15):  "For  he  is  poor, 
and  setteth  his  heart  upon  it  [the  money  due] ;  lest 
he  cry  against  thee  to  the  Lord,  and  it  be  a  sin 
unto  thee." 

There  is  nothing  here  to  show  that  the  Levitical 
law  is  a  later  development,  but  rather  the  reverse.  It 
alone  of  the  three  glances  backward  to  the  land  of 
Egypt.     Yet  this  must  be  looked  upon  as  simply  fortui- 


Laws  Repeated  and  Modified  in  Deuteronomy.     1 83 

tous.  The  three  forms  of  the  law  are  all  from  one 
period,  and  only  serve  to  enforce  by  repetition  and  the 
urging  of  different  incentives  the  same  obligation  of 
tenderness  toward  the  weak  and  helpless. 

Number  of  Witnesses  in  Capital  Cases. — The  Deu- 
teronomic  law  relating  to  idolatry  (xvii.  2-7;  xiii.  1-19) 
is,  in  general,  but  an  expansion  of  the  brief  regulation 
of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  xxii.  19).  It  has  one 
important  specification,  however,  in  which  it  covers 
ground  common  with  that  of  the  middle  books.  In 
Numbers  (xxxv.  30)  it  is  forbidden  to  put  to  death  one 
charged  with  murder  on  the  testimony  of  a  single  wit- 
ness ;  there  must  be  witnesses.  In  Deuteronomy  (xvii. 
6;  cf.  xix.  15),  on  the  other  hand,  the  number  of  wit- 
nesses declared  to  be  necessary  in  such  cases  is  fixed 
expressly  at  two  or  three ;  and,  still  further,  it  is  made 
binding  on  these  witnesses,  in  the  execution  of  the 
sentence,  to  raise  their  own  hands  first  against  the 
criminal. 

Can  it  be  considered  in  any  sense  probable  that  the 
legislation  in  Numbers  originated  after  that  of  Deuter- 
onomy, especially  in  view  of  the  uniform  Jewish  prac- 
tice, which  was  undoubtedly  based  on  Deuteronomy 
(John  viii.  17  ;  Acts  vii.  58  ;  Heb.  x.  28)  .-•  In  my  intro- 
duction to  the  Additions  to  Daniel  ^  it  is  shown  to  be 
likely  that  the  Book  of  Susanna  had  for  its  real  object 
a  reform  in  the  method  of  conducting  legal  processes, 
and  especially  to  correct  abuses  springing  from  the 
dominance  of  the  principle  that  two  witnesses  were 
sufficient  to  convict  of  the  most  heinous  offences.^ 

*  Old  Testament  Apocrypha,  New  York,  1880,  p.  447. 

'  The  somewhat  indefinite  form  of  the  law  even  in  Deuteronomy  would  naturally  lead  to 
discussion  among  those  so  much  given  to  it  as  the  later  rabbins.  Besides  it  was  a  matter 
of  life  and  death  and  it  was  to  be  expected  that  every  possible  point  would  be  hotly  con- 
tested. The  question  of  priority,  however,  as  between  the  two  forms  of  the  law,  here  turns, 
as  it  seems  to  me,  not  exclusively  on  later  usage,  but,  also  and  especially,  on  the  fact  that 


1 84        TJie  PcntatciicJi :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Magical  Arts  and  Divination. — There  was  nothing 
more  common  among  all  the  peoples  of  antiquity, 
including  the  inhabitants  of  Canaan  and  adjacent 
lands,  than  the  practice  of  magic  in  some  of  its 
numerous  forms.  Ancient  Egypt  abounded  in  it,  and 
the  monuments  of  Assyria  and  Babylon  show  that 
these  nations  in  their  religious,  social,  and  even  politi- 
cal, life  were  no  less  under  its  influence.  And  as  one  of 
the  most  subtle  and  fascinating  forms  of  idolatry,  it  was 
natural  that  the  Mosaic  law  should  take  cognizance  of 
it,  and  denounce  the  severest  penalties  against  it.  In 
this  particular  all  the  codes  agree  ;  there  is  not  one  of 
them  that  does  not  adjudge  so  gross  a  violation  of  its 
fundamental  principles  as  worthy  of  death  (Ex.  xxii. 
17;  Lev.  xix.  26,  31;  XX,  6,  27;  cf.  Num.  xxiii.  23; 
Deut,  xviii.  9-14). 

But  there  is  a  marked  gradation  in  the  fulness  and 
emphasis  with  which  the  several  books  characterize 
this  sin.  Exodus  speaks  only  of  the  female  magician  ; 
Leviticus  and  Numbers  of  five  other  sorts  ;  while  Deu- 
teronomy combines  in  its  list  all  of  them  together  under 
their  technical  names  (using  the  masculine  form,  how- 
ever), adds  to  them  three  other  kinds  not  found  in  the 

the  Deuteronomic  law  is  the  more  complete.  It  is  true  that  in  other  instances,  not  a  few 
indeed  in  this  very  paper,  the  fact  of  an  undeveloped  form  of  a  law  in  Deuteronomy  has 
been  taken  as  presupposing  and  pointing  to  a  prior  more  developed  form  to  be  found  else- 
where, namely,  in  the  middle  books.  Why  may  not  then  the  brevity  of  the  law  in 
Numbers  in  this  case  presuppose  an  older  and  fully  developed  law  in  Deuteronomy  ? 
Because  the  cases  are  really  very  different.  In  the  one,  we  are  adjusting  facts  to  the 
theory  that  the  Deuteronomic  code  is  a  somewhat  later  repetition  and  supplementary 
popular  form  of  that  of  the  middle  books.  In  the  other  case,  to  the  theory  that  the  laws 
of  the  middle  books  are  a  7nnch  later, fiilly  developed,  officially  promulgated  Priests' 
Code.  In  such  a  code  it  could  not  be  expected  that  a  law  of  this  character,  especially 
involving  the  functions  of  priests,  would  be  found  having  the  relation  of  this  one  to  Deu- 
teronomy. If  it  could  be  shown  in  the  other  cases  mentioned  that,  notwithstanding  the 
contrary  averment  of  the  history  connected  with  the  laws,  the  forms  of  the  law  found  in 
Deuteronomy  accord  better  with  the  hypothesis  of  a  gradual  development  of  such  laws 
into  those  of  the  middle  books,  such  a  process  of  reasoning  would  not  apply  here  where 
the  more  developed  and  precise  form  is  found  to  be  the  one  alleged  to  be  earlier. 


Laivs  Repeated  and  Modified  in  De7iteronomy.     1 85 

parallel  accounts,  and  puts  the  sin  on  a  level  with  the 
offering  of  human  sacrifices.  There  is  but  one  conclu- 
sion to  be  drawn  from  such  a  fact,  and  it  is  far  enough 
from  agreeing  with  that  theory  of  gradual  development 
for  these  laws,  with  Leviticus  and  Numbers  at  its  crown, 
that  has  sprung  up  in  our  times. 

The  history  of  the  matter  as  it  appears  in  the 
Hebrew  literature  is  quite  as  irreconcilable  a  factor  in 
such  a  theory.  Centuries  previous  to  the  time  when, 
according  to  our  critics,  the  code  of  Deuteronomy 
began  to  have  force,  during  the  reign  of  Israel's  first 
king  (i  Sam.  xv.  23  ;  xxviii.  7-9),  we  already  find  its 
severe  penalties  executed  against  this  crime  ;  and  long 
after  the  supposed  post-exilian  introduction  of  the 
Levitical  legislation  it  still  continues  to  flourish,  and 
remains  a  prominent  sin  of  the  intractable  people  of 
the  exodus  down  to  the  Christian  era  (Zech.  x.  2  ; 
Mai.  iii.  25). ^ 

Cities  of  Refuge.  —  Not  less  prevalent  than  supersti- 
tion and  idolatry  among  the  peoples  with  whom  Israel 
had  to  do  was  the  immemorial  practice  of  blood-revenge. 
The  Shemitic  races,  it  is  well  known,  were  particularly 
given  to  it,  and  are  so  to  this  day.  To  what  terrible 
excesses  it  naturally  led,  since  retaliation  in  its  turn 
provoked  retaliation,  what  wild  feuds  arose  among  fam- 
ilies, which  could  only  be  suppressed  by  their  total 
extermination,  may  readily  be  conceived ;  in  fact,  is 
matter  of  history,  sacred  as  well  as  profane.  This  ter- 
rible custom,  now,  the  Mosaic  laws  aimed  not  to  do 
away  with,  for  it  was  founded  in  a  natural  and  proper 
sentiment  of  justice,  but  to  restrict  and  regulate  in 
keeping  with  the  spirit  of  all  its  institutions.  Murder 
was  a  crime  against  society,  indeed,  but  a  greater  crime 

*  Cf.  Hamburger,  s.v.  "  Zauberei "  in  Real-Encyc.  fur  Dibel  -und  Talmud 


1 86        The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

against  God.  He  would  avenge.  The  man-slayer 
should  be  his  instrument,  and  no  longer  self-appointed 
and  self-moved.  At  the  same  time  there  must  be  scru- 
pulous care  exercised.  It  was  only  the  guilty  who 
should  suffer.  Provision  should  be  made  not  only  that 
fathers  should  not  be  put  to  death  for  sons  and  sons  for 
fathers  (Deut.  xxiv.  i6),  but  to  rescue  the  involuntary 
homicide  himself  from  the  hands  of  offended  relatives 
while  their  "blood  was  hot."  This  was  the  real  occa- 
sion for  the  cities  of  refuge. 

The  three  codes  present  the  matter  much  as  we 
might  expect  them  to  do  on  the  supposition  that  they 
appear  in  chronological  order,  and  that  all  of  them 
originated  within  the  Mosaic  period.  The  Book  of  the 
Covenant  (Ex.  xxi.  13)  recognizes  the  necessity  for  a 
law  on  the  subject,  and  announces  that  some  place  will 
be  provided  to  which  one  accidentally  taking  the  life  of 
another  may  flee  and  be  safe.  In  the  fuller  legislation 
of  the  Book  of  Numbers  (xxxv.  1-38),  in  natural  con- 
nection with  instructions  concerning  the  Levitical  cities, 
such  provision  is  duly  made,  and  a  sufficient  number  of 
conveniently  situated  asylums  of  this  sort  appointed. 
In  Deuteronomy  (iv.  41-43)  we  find  Moses,  in  harmony 
with  the  law  of  the  middle  books,  designating  three 
cities  of  refuge  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  Jordan  ;  and 
subsequently,  Joshua  (Josh.  xxi.  13,  21,  27)  selecting 
the  other  three  called  for  by  the  statutes  on  the 
western  side. 

The  Deuteronomic  code  (xix.  1-13  ;  cf.  xxiv.  16),  evi- 
dently presupposing  what  Moses  is  recorded  as  doing 
previously  (iv.  41-43),  is  much  of  the  nature  of  a  com- 
mentary on  the  law  in  Numbers.  It  makes  still  more 
explicit  by  illustration  what  class  of  persons  might  find 
domicile  within  the  refuge  cities  (vs.  4,  5)  ;  gives  com- 


Laws  Repeated  and  Modified  in  Deuteronomy.     187 

prehensive,  though  brief,  directions  for  rendering  the 
cities  easily  accessible,  and,  what  is  more  important  of 
all  for  our  investigations,  adds  the  concession  that,  on 
certain  conditions,  three  cities  more,  making  nine  in 
all,  may  be  used  for  this  purpose.  The  conditions  are 
that  the  people  prove  obedient  and  faithful  — ■  which, 
unhappily,  they  do  not  —  and  their  boundaries  are  ulti- 
mately enlarged  to  the  extent  promised  to  Abraham 
(Gen.  XV.  18). 

In  this  provision  for  additional  cities  found  in  Deu- 
teronomy critics  like  Wellhausen  profess  to  find  a 
special  stumbling-block.  They  do  not  see  how  it  is 
possible  that  such  a  concession  could  have  been  made 
in  Deuteronomy,  if  it  be  the  latest  form  of  the  law,  in 
the  face  of  the  allotment  of  but  six  cities  for  this  pur- 
pose in  Numbers.  It  is  only,  however,  because  they 
are  unwilling  to  acknowledge  that  Moses  was  equally 
concerned  in  both  codes.  If  it  be  granted,  as  it  should 
be,  that  he  was  fully  competent  (always,  of  course, 
under  divine  direction)  to  modify,  as  circumstances 
might  demand,  his  own  earlier  regulations,  the  difficulty 
at  once  disappears. 

On  the  other  hand,  from  their  own  point  of  view,  we 
do  not  see  how  the  difficulty  is  made  any  less  serious 
by  supposing  that  the  legislation  of  Numbers,  if  it  fol- 
lowed long  after  that  of  Deuteronomy,  would  venture 
so  to  counterwork  established  and  ostensibly  Mosaic 
institutions  as  to  ordain  that  three  of  its  six  cities  of 
refuge  should  be  on  the  eastern  side  and  three  on  the 
western  side  of  the  Jordan,  when  the  Deuteronomic 
code  (xix.  7-9),  taken  by  itself,  as  it  is  assumed  it 
should  be,  allows  but  three  cities  altogether  for  such  a 
purpose,  or  six  on  the  western  side  on  conditions  that 
were  never  actually  complied  with.     No  one  can  fail  to 


1 88        The  PentatcucJi:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 


i>' 


see  that  this  horn  of  the  dilemma  is  fully  as  embar- 
rassing as  the  other.i 

Bearing  False  Witness.  —  In  addition  to  the  regula- 
tion already  considered  concerning  the  number  of 
witnesses  needful  to  establish  capital  offences,  there 
is  another  in  the  Pentateuch  relating  to  the  bearing  of 
false  witness.  Its  first  appearance  is  in  the  decalogue 
itself,  and  then  again  in  the  same  Book  of  the  Cove- 
nant {Ex.  xxiii.  I,  3),  forming  what  Ewald  and  others 
name  a  "pentade,"  that  is,  a  law  having  five  separate 
injunctions,  all  sustaining  a  relation  more  or  less  close 
with  a  central  theme.  The  "  pentade  "  here,  however, 
is  somewhat  arbitrarily  made  up,  and  might  be  consid- 
erably enlarged  by  adding  the  prohibitions  recorded  or 
implied  in  vs.  6,  8,  immediately  following.  The  same 
topic  is  taken  up  in  Leviticus  (xix.  11,  15,  16),  but  in 
a  very  general  way,  covering  in  the  main  the  same 
ground,  but  with  no  greater  fulness,  and  much  less 
definiteness,  than  Exodus. 

It  is  not  till  we  come  to  Deuteronomy  (xix.   16,  21) 

*  A  scholarly  friend,  whose  life  has  been  given  to  the  critical  study  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  sends  me  the  following  criticism  on  the  view  taken  in  this  section:  "  I  am  not 
at  all  sure  of  your  interpretation  of  the  number  of  the  cities  of  refuge.  It  depends  upon 
the  priority  of  Num.  xxxv.  to  Deut.  xix.  Both  were  spoken  '  in  the  plain  of  Moab'  and 
must  have  been  not  far  from  one  another  in  time.  Now  if  we  can  suppose  Deut.  xix.  1-13 
to  have  been  spoken  before  the  conquest  of  the  transjordanic  territory,  all  will  be  clear. 
Moses  provides  absolutely  for  three  cities,  and  for  three  more  in  case  of  enlargement  of 
territory.  The  territory  on  the  east  of  Jordan  was  not  intended,  so  to  speak,  to  be  con- 
quered or  divided  among  the  tribes,  and  Moses  consented  reluctantly  to  its  occupation  by 
the  two  and  a  half  tribes  (see  Num.  xxxii.).  Before  this  territory  was  conquered,  three 
cities  were  likely  to  be  enough.  Afterward  it  was  seen  that  they  would  be  too  distant  and 
Moses  (Deut.  iv.  41-43)  appointed  the  three  cities  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan.  Numbers 
XXXV.,  in  appointing  six  cities,  locates  three  on  the  east  of  Jordan,  thus  clearly  including 
those  of  Deut.  iv.  The  passage  in  Numbers  was  certainly  after  the  conquest  on  the  east, 
and  so  was  Deut.  iv.  If  we  suppose  Deut.  xix.  to  have  been  before,  it  will  be  necessary 
to  suppose  that  the  two  discourses  were  delivered  in  the  reverse  order  from  that  in  which 
they  are  recorded.  I  know  of  no  objection  to  this,  and  there  is  an  obvious  reason  why 
the  longer  exhortation  founded  on  the  law  (which  may  have  actually  been  divided  into 
several  discourses)  should  follow  the  shorter  one  on  the  history.  I  do  not  recall  anything 
in  this  longer  discourse  inconsistent  with  this  supposition.  Deut.  iv.  44-49,  which  is  often 
considered  as  belonging  with  it,  may  quite  as  well  be  connected  with  the  previous 
discourse." 


Laws  Repeated  and  Modified  in  Detiterononiy.     189 

that  we  find  anything  like  detail.  Here  directions  are 
given  concerning  what  is  to  be  done  to  test  the  matter 
whether  a  witness  be  true  or  false  ;  and  in  case  he  is 
proved  false,  what  penalty  is  to  be  visited  upon  him. 
The  other  two  codes  seem,  certainly,  to  be  before  the 
legislator  of  Deuteronomy,  and  his  direct  object  to 
supplement  them.  Comparing  together  the  codes  of 
Leviticus  and  Deuteronomy,  if  one's  judgment  is  to 
be  based  solely  on  the  laws  in  form  and  substance  as 
they  now  appear,  there  could  be  no  reason  for  assign- 
ing a  later  date  to  that  of  Leviticus. 

Rights  of  InJieritajicc.  —  The  unwritten  law  of  inheri- 
tance in  Israel  was  that  the  eldest  legitimate  son 
should  be  his  father's  heir,  receiving  a  double  portion 
of  all  his  possessions,  the  father's  special  blessing,  and 
all  other  rights  and  privileges  appertaining  to  the 
proper  head  of  the  family.  This  law  is  recognized  by 
incidental  allusions  in  the  history  and  the  codes,  but  is 
nowhere  made  the  subject  of  an  enactment,  except  in 
the  way  of  restriction  or  supplement. 

Deuteronomy,  for  example,  provides  against  the  pos- 
sible partiality  of  a  father  for  the  first-born  son  of  a 
favorite  wife  (xxi.  15-17),  prohibiting  his  making  him 
his  heir  in  preference  to  the  real  first-born ;  while 
Numbers  (xxvii.  i  ff.  ;  xxxvi.  ;  cf.  Josh.  xvii.  3  f.)  pro- 
vides for  the  case  where  there  are  no  children  save 
daughters,  constituting  them  equal  heirs  of  their 
father's  estate,  on  the  understanding  that  they  marry 
within  their  own  tribe.  In  the  same  connection,  it  is 
shown  what  is  to  be  done  if  there  are  no  children  at  all. 
The  second  case  is  an  exceedingly  interesting  one, 
from  the  fact  that  it  is  special  legislation,  and  arose,  in 
its  original  form,  from  an  actual  appeal  to  Moses  on 
the  part  of   the  daughters    of    a   man   who    had    died 


1 90       The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

leaving  no  son.  Moreover,  it  was  subsequently 
amended  because  of  a  similar  direct  appeal  to  the 
lawgiver  in  view  of  certain  difficulties  expected  to 
arise  under  it  if  it  were  left  as  first  drafted.  It  is 
quite  probable  that  the  legislation  in  Deuteronomy  was 
the  result  of  a  similar,  though  unrecorded,  emergency. 

Such  instances,  in  fact,  serve  to  account,  in  some 
measure,  for  the  journal-like  character  of  a  large  por- 
tion of  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch.  So-called  discre> 
pancies  are  often  nothing  more  or  less  than  amend- 
ments  called  forth  by  altered  circumstances,  or  revision 
suggested  by  further  thought.  In  the  case  before  us 
there  is  certainly  no  just  occasion  for  predicating  a 
later  date  for  the  law  in  its  Levitical  form.  We  see, 
indeed,  the  very  circumstance  of  the  history  that 
called  it  forth  passing  before  our  eyes.  Incidentally, 
attention  may  be  called  to  the  fact  that  the 
Deuteronomic  code  at  this  point  makes  use  of  the 
otherwise  unused  expression  of  Jacob  in  his  address 
to  Reuben,  found  in  a  document  usually  ascribed  to 
the  second  Elohist  {cf.  with  Deut.  xxi.  17,  Gen.  xlix.  3, 
"  beginning  of  my  strength  " ). 

The  Property  of  a  Brother  Israelite.  —  In  Deut.  xxii. 
1-4  we  have  the  command  to  restore  the  straying 
animal  of  a  brother,  or  anything  else  he  may  have  lost. 
Added  to  this  is  another  of  similar  import,  to  the  effect 
that  help  is  to  be  given  in  case  the  animal  of  a  brother 
fall  under  its  burden.  It  is  altogether  but  a  somewhat 
changed  reproduction  of  a  passage  in  Exodus  (xxiii. 
4,  5),  which,  however,  contains  the  thought  that  this 
brother  whose  animal  js  astray  or  in  trouble  is  one  with 
whom  the  person  addressed  is  not  on  friendly  terms. 
Still,  the  epithet  "brother"  used  in  Deuteronomy 
may  be  understood  as  comprehending  the  special  case 


Laws  Repeated  and  Modified  in  Deuteronomy.    191 

mentioned  in  Exodus,  together  with  all  others  of  a 
similar  character ;  while  this  form  of  the  code  alone 
extends  the  rule  to  anything  which  might  be  lost 
(using  a  word  only  used  elsewhere  in  Ex.  xxii.  18  and 
in  the  code  of  the  middle  books  :  Lev.  v.  22,  23). 
Considering,  moreover,  the  secondary  character  of  the 
legislation  in  Deuteronomy,  it  is  remarkable  to  what 
extent  its  language  differs  from  that  of  Exodus  while 
expressing  the  same  general  thought.  It  is  far  enough 
from  being  a  slavish  imitation. 

Kijidness  to  Animals.  —  In  harmony  with  the  fourth 
commandment,  v/hich  enjoins  rest  for  animals  as  well 
as  man,  we  find  in  Deuteronomy  (xxii.  6,  7)  the  com- 
mand not  to  destroy  a  bird  and  its  young  or  eggs  at  the 
same  time.  Doubtless  the  purpose  of  the  law  was 
partly  economic ;  but  the  special  motive  urged,  "that  it 
may  be  well  with  thee,"  shows  that  higher  considera- 
tions also  ruled  (cf.  Ex.  xxiii.  19;  xxxiv.  26;  Deut.  xiv. 
21  ;  xxv.  4).  It  seems  to  be  but  another  specification, 
or  illustration,  under  the  law  given  in  Leviticus  (xxii. 
28)  which  prohibits  the  killing  of  an  animal  and  its 
young,  "whether  it  be  a  cow  or  ewe,"  both  in  one  day. 
There  is  no  evidence  whatever  that  the  Deuteronomic 
law  antedates  the  Levitical.  The  one  looks  simply 
toward  the  open  fields  and  ordinary  life ;  the  other 
toward  the  sanctuary  and  its  sacrifices. 

Mixing  Diverse  Things. — The  law  in  Deuteronomy 
against  sowing  a  field  with  diverse  seed,  ploughing  with 
an  ox  and  an  ass  yoked  together,  wearing  garments  of 
mingled  woolen  and  linen,  and  forbidding  one  sex  to 
wear  the  clothing  of  the  other  (xxii.  5,  9-1 1),  is,  as  it 
would  appear,  but  an  enlargement  of  that  of  Leviticus 
(xix.  19),  two  of  the  particulars  being  precisely  the 
same,  and  the  unlike  one   in    the   latter   code  —  that 


192       The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Stnicttire. 

cattle  of  diverse  kinds  shall  not  be  allowed  to  gender 
together  —  not  being  of  such  a  nature  as  to  suggest 
priestly  improvements  of  a  later  date.  A  peculiar  dual 
form  is  found  only  in  these  two  places.  The  same  is 
true  of  another  word,  which  is  explained  in  the  more 
popular  code  as  meaning  a  material  made  up  of  woolen 
and  linen.  Deuteronomy  speaks  of  "vineyard,"  in 
place  of  "field"  found  in  Leviticus;  but  it  is  an 
unimportant  variation.^  The  motive  urged  in  Deuter- 
onomy for  not  sowing  with  diverse  seeds  is  worthy  of 
notice,  "  lest  it  be  made  holy,"  that  is,  be  confiscated 
to  feed  the  priests  and  Levites  of  the  sanctuary  (cf. 
Lev.  vi.  11). 

Fringes  on  the  Garment.  —  In  the  Book  of  Numbers 
(xv.  37-41)  Moses  is  represented  as  enjoining  upon  the 
Israelites,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  that  they  should 
wear  fringes  on  the  borders  of  their  garments,  and  that 
these  fringes  be  ornamented  with  a  ribbon  of  blue,  the 
whole  to  be  a  memorial  of  what  God  had  done  for  them 
and  of  their  duty  to  him.  In  Deuteronomy  (xxii.  12) 
the  word  "  borders  "  is  changed  to  "  four  borders,"  for 
"garments"  we  have  "upper  garment"  (cf.  Ex.  xxii. 
26),  and  the  fringes  themselves,  instead  of  cj(^ith 
(found  only  here  and  in  Ezek.  viii.  3),  are  called  g^dilini 
(cf.  I  Kings  vii.  17).  All  the  changes  seem  to  be  in 
the  interest  of  clearness  and  definiteness.  The  employ- 
ment of  the  former  word  in  Ezekiel  has  no  bearing  on 
its  use  here,  as  it  is  there  used  for  quite  a  different 
thing,  the  forelock.     The  Deuteronomic  name,  which 

^  It  might  better  be  said,  perhaps,  that  as  a  more  specific  statement,  it  is  more  naturally 
found  in  a  code  of  the  purport  of  that  of  Deuteronomy.  So  Kamphausen  in  Riehm's 
Handworterbuch  s.v.  "  Verschiedenartiges":  "  Die  Erwahnung  des  wol  hauptsachlich 
in  Betracht  kommenden  Weinbergs  erscheint  als  eine  der  Verdeutlichung  dienende  nahere 
Bestimmung  des  alten  Gesetz.  Es  war  namlich  wol  haiifiger  der  Fall,  dass  man  Zwi- 
schen  die  Reihen  der  Weinstbcke  irgend  eine  Art  von  Getreide  oder  Gemiise  saete,  als  dass 
man  die  untereinander  gemengten  Kiirner  z.  B.  von  Gerste  und  Weizen  auf  dasselbe 
Feld  streute." 


Latvs  Repeated  and  Modified  in  Dcntero7toniy.     193 

is  derived  from  the  process  of  manufacturing,  is  surely 
an  improvement,  for  such  a  code,  over  the  more  tech- 
nical designation  of  Numbers,  being  a  common  word, 
and  having  the  same  meaning  in  Hebrew,  Aramaic, 
Syriac,  and  Arabic. 

Svis  against  Chastity.  —  The  only  law  against  un- 
chastity  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  is  contained  in 
the  two  injunctions  (Ex.  xxii.  16,  18),  the  one  relating 
to  the  seduction  of  a  bondmaid  who  is  a  virgin,  the 
other  to  lying  carnally  with  a  beast  as  with  mankind. 
Leviticus  devotes  to  the  subject  a  series  of  enactments, 
extending,  altogether,  over  more  than  thirty  verses 
(xviii.  6-30;  XX.  10-26).  The  legislation  of  Deuter- 
onomy is  largely  special  (xxii.  13-29;  xxiii.  i),  having 
nothing  in  common  with  Leviticus  except  a  command 
concerning  adultery  in  its  narrower  sense  (vs.  22 ;  cf. 
Lev.  xviii.  20;  xx.  10),  which  it  defines  and  punishes 
in  the  same  way ;  and  the  one  concerning  the  seduction 
of  a  virgin  (vs.  28,  29;  cf.  Lev.  xix.  20-22),  which, 
however,  it  considerably  enlarges,  and  makes  cover 
three  distinct  cases,  all  of  them  different  from  the  one 
adduced  in  Leviticus. 

Of  the  two  codes,  taken  simply  by  themselves,  the 
priority  of  date  would  naturally  fall  to  the  form  in 
Leviticus,  that  of  Deuteronomy  being  of  too  limited 
a  character  to  stand  by  itself,  and  its  enactments,  as  we 
have  intimated,  of  the  nature  of  amendments.  Atten- 
tion, moreover,  may  well  be  called  to  the  fact  that  in 
the  passage  in  Deuteronomy  (xxiii.  i)  the  law  of 
incest  as  found  in  Leviticus  (xvii.  7  ff.)  seems  to  be 
recalled  and  renewed  by  a  repetition  of  the  first  enact- 
ment of  it.  The  lawgiver  had  together  with  the  one 
chief  instance  of  incest  the  others,  which  were  almost 
equally   criminal,    in    mind,    as   the   anathemas  (Deut. 


1 94       The  Pentateuch  :   Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

xxvii.  20,  22,  23)  show.  It  is  but  another  way  of 
citing  the  Levitical  code. 

Cleanliness  in  Camp.  —  True  to  its  historical  back- 
ground, Deuteronomy  has  a  number  of  laws  relating  to 
methods  of  conducting  warfare  upon  the  inhabitants  of 
Canaan  and  the  adjacent  countries.  As  was  to  be 
expected,  they  are  all,  to  a  large  extent,  peculiar  to  it ; 
and  the  present  one  has  been  selected  for  special 
remark  only  because,  in  its  principal  features,  certain 
laws  of  the  books  immediately  preceding  are  so  clearly 
reflected  in  it  (with  Deut.  xxiii.  10-15  cf.  respectively 
Lev.  XV.  1-33;  xviii.  19;  xx.  18;  Num,  v.  1-4;  xxxi, 
19-24).  The  particular  uncleanness  specified  in  vs.  10, 
1 1  of  Deuteronomy  is  provided  for  in  the  same  way  in 
the  other  code  (Lev.  xv.  16,  17  ;  cf.  Num.  v.  2),  and  the 
same  degree  of  ceremonial  impurity  is  imputed  to  it. 
That  of  vs.  12,  13,  while  special  in  its  character,  is 
wholly  of  one  spirit  with  that  of  the  Book  of  Numbers. 
So,  too,  the  motive  assigned  for  what  is  required  in  the 
people's  code  is  fully  up  to  the  standard  of  that  of  the 
priests'  :  "  Sanctify  yourselves,  therefore,  and  be  ye 
holy;  for  I  the  Lord  am  holy"  (Deut.  xxiii.  15;  cf. 
Lev.  XX.  7).  It  is  not  an  unimportant  circumstance  in 
view  of  current  theories  of  development  in  this 
particular  direction. 

Prostitution.  — The  code  of  the  middle  books  forbids 
male  prostitution,  otherwise  known  as  sodomy,  in  the 
following  terms  :  "  Thou  shalt  not  lie  with  mankind  as 
with  womankind;  it  is  an  abomination"  (Lev.  xviii. 
22)  ;  and  female  prostitution  with  equal  explicitness  in 
the  following  chapter  (xix.  29).  Deuteronomy  com- 
bines the  two  enactments  in  one  (xxiii.  18,  19),  using  a 
technical  term  for  prostitute  first  employed  in  Genesis 
(xxxviii.  21  f.),  but  frequently  found  in  the  later  histori- 


Laios  Rr/catccl  and  Modified  in  Deuteronomy.     195 

cal  and  other  books  (i  Kings  xiv.  24;  xv.  12  ;  xxii.  47  ; 
2  Kings  xxiii.  7;  Job  xxxvi.  14;  Hos.  iv.  14).  It  also 
adds  to  it  an  injunction,  perhaps  suggested  by  this  very 
term  as  used  by  Phoenician  and  Canaanitish  neighbors, 
to  the  effect  that  money  obtained  by  such  means  "  for 
any  vow "  is  in  no  case  to  be  brought  into  the  house 
of  the  Lord. 

There  is  every  indication  that  Deuteronomy  repre- 
sents the  latest  form  of  the  law.  The  expression 
"  house  of  the  Lord,"  otherwise  strange  to  the  book, 
occurs  in  Exodus  (xxiii.  19),  and  is  no  proof  that  the 
temple  was  already  built.  The  epithet  "dog"  applied 
to  the  male  prostitute  is  as  remarkable  for  its  literary 
precision  as  for  its  exalted  moral  tone. 

Usury.  ■ —  Exacting  interest  for  what  was  loaned  to 
Israelitish  brethren  is  forbidden  in  each  of  the  three 
forms  of  the  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch  (Ex.  xxii.  24  ; 
Lev.  xxv.  35-37;  Deut.  xxiii.  20,  21)  ;  but  these  forms 
are  by  no  means  simple  repetitions  of  one  another. 
Each  furnishes  something  peculiar  to  itself. 

EXODUS.  LEVITICUS.  DEUTERONOMY. 

"  If  thou  lend  money  to  (7«^        "And  if  thy   brother  "Thou  shalt  not  exact  in- 

of  my  people  among  you,  thou     have  grown  poor  .  .  .  or  the  terest  ol  thy  brother,  interest 

sha'.t  not  be  to  him  as  one  ex-     stranger  and  sojourner  for  money,  interest  for  food, 

acting  interest;   thou  shah  not     with  thee,  thou  shalt   re-  interest  for    anything  for 

charge  him  with  interest."            lievehim.    Thou  shalt  not  -which   one  might  exact  in- 

take  interest  from  him  or  terest.    Of  the/oreigner  thou 

increase.   Thy  money  thou  mayest  exact   it,   but   of  thy 

shalt  not  give  him  for  in-  brother  thou  shalt  not  exact  it, 

terest,  nor   thy  food   for  in  order  that  the  Lord  thy  God 

increase.     I  am  the  Lord  may  bless  thee." 
your  God." 

In  Exodus  the  poor  Israelite  is  spoken  of  as  one  of 
God's  people,  and  this  thought  supplies  the  place  of  the 
motives  urged  in  the  other  laws.  In  Leviticus,  not 
only  is  interest  for  money  loaned  prohibited,  but  for 
food.     In   Deuteronomy  this  is   extended  to  anything 


196       The  Pentateuch:  Its  Origm  and  Structure. 

loaned.  Leviticus  enjoins  that  its  provisions  shall  be 
applied  to  strangers  (proselytes)  and  sojourners  who 
are  casually  dwelling  among  the  Israelites.  Deuter- 
onomy adds,  in  harmony  with  its  special  outlook,  that 
from  foreigners  interest  for  anything  loaned  may  be 
legally  received  ;  that  is,  from  Phoenician,  Canaanitish, 
and  other  professional  traders  with  whom  they  may 
have  dealings. 

It  is  plain  that  there  is  no  call  here  for  any  adjust- 
ment ;  the  sacred  laws  are  completely  self-adjusting. 
They  nicely  fit  and  complement  one  another,  and  the 
three  taken  together  form  one  harmonious  whole.  The 
question  of  conflict  or  of  development  in  the  line  of 
Exodus,  Deuteronomy,  Leviticus,  with  a  space  of  cen- 
turies between  the  separate  codes,  cannot  for  a  moment 
be  entertained. 

Voivs.  —  The  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch  neither 
imposed  vows  nor  treated  them  as  particularly  merito- 
rious. They  might  be  made  or  ignored  without  sin 
(Deut.  xxiii.  22).  This  attitude  was  to  have  been 
expected  ;  since  it  is  what  God  requires,  and  not  what 
one  voluntarily  takes  upon  himself,  that  these  laws 
make  it  their  object  to  prescribe  and  enact.  Still  the 
subject  could  not  be  wholly  overlooked ;  for  vows  had 
in  all  times  and  countries  a  great  deal  to  do  with  the 
religious  life  as  popularly  understood  and  practised. 

Hence  the  Mosaic  laws  undertake  to  regulate  the 
matter  in  harmony  with  their  own  fundamental  princi- 
ples. If,  for  example,  one  had  actually  made  a  vow,  it 
must  be  fulfilled  at  the  exact  time  and  in  the  manner 
originally  assumed  (Num.  xxx.  3  ;  Deut.  xxiii.  22,  23  ; 
Judges  xi.  30  ff).  Everything  of  which  a  person  had 
the  proper  disposal,  that  is,  which  did  not  already  come 
under  the  head  of  appointed  offerings,  it  was  presup 


Laivs  Repeated  and  Modified  in  Dcnteronomy.    k^'J 

posed  in  the  law  might  be  voluntarily  devoted  to  God, 
and  it  does  not  accordingly  refer  to  the  matter  except, 
as  we  have  already  seen,  by  forbidding  that  the  gains 
of  prostitution  shall  be  brought  into  the  house  of  the 
Lord  (Deut.  xxiii.  i8).  Such  an  exception  gives  just 
the  local  coloring  to  this  phase  of  the  legislation  which 
its  supposed  circumstances  admit  and  serves  also  to 
display  its  true  relation  to  the  others  in  this  matter. 
It  is  the  middle  books  that  have  the  most  to  say  con- 
cerning vows  (Lev.  vii.,  xxii.,  xxiii.,  xxvii.  ;  Num.  vi., 
XV.,  xxix.,  and  especially  xxx.).  What  is  said  in  the 
people's  code  (Deut.  xii.  6,  ii,  17,  26;  xxiii.  22  f.)  is  to 
be  looked  upon  less  in  the  light  of  any  attempt  to  lay 
down  rules,  with  the  exception  just  noticed,  and  more 
as  designed  to  impress  an  important  principle  under- 
lying all  vows,  that  what  had  been  once  vowed  could 
never  be  recalled  (cf.  its  "  when  thou  vowest  a  vow," 
and  "what  thy  mouth  hath  spoken  "  with  Num.  xxx.  3, 

6,  7,  13)- 

It  is  true  that  in  the  degeneracy  of  the  later  Judaism 
an  ever  greater  stress  came  to  be  laid  on  self-imposed 
duties  and  restraints  (Mai.  i.  14;  Matt.  xv.  5  ;  Mark  vii. 
9),  and  it  might  therefore  be  claimed  that  the  minute 
injunctions  of  the  middle  books  reflect  the  spirit  of  a 
post-exilian  Israel.  But  when  it  is  considered  that 
nothing  at  all  is  said  of  vows  in  the  laws  of  Exodus, 
and  that  what  is  said  in  Deuteronomy  is  of  a  hortatory, 
or  a  purely  emendatory,  character,  the  legislation  of  the 
middle  books  seems  to  be  positively  demanded  to  meet 
the  requirements  of  so  fixed  and  widespread  a  custom 
of  the  earliest  periods  and  one  so  ethical  in  its  bearings. 

Pledges.  —  Deuteronomy  treats  the  matter  of  pledges 
given  for  loans,  relatively,  at  considerable  length 
(xxiv,  6,   10-13,    17,   18),  and  altogether  from  its  uni- 


198       The  Pentateuch:    Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

formly  merciful  and  humane  point  of  view.  In  form, 
what  it  has  to  say  is  evidently  based  on  Exodus  (xxii. 
25,  26),  whose  provisions,  or  more  properly  illustrations, 
it  simply  enlarges.  Neither  form  of  the  law  has  any- 
thing to  say  about  the  pledging  of  land,  which  first 
came  into  use  after  the  time  of  Nehemiah  (Neh.  v.  3)  ; 
and  the  same  is  true  of  the  code  of  the  middle  books, 
which  is  silent  on  the  entire  subject. 

Man-stealing. — The  law  concerning  man-stealing  is 
also  limited  to  the  same  two  codes.  In  the  first  form 
of  the  law  (Ex.  xxi.  16)  the  matter  is  not  confined  to  the 
stealing  of  Hebrews  alone  ;  and  if  the  one  stolen  were 
either  found  in  the  thief's  hands,  that  is,  as  a  slave,  or 
had  been  sold  by  him,  the  thief  was  to  be  put  to  death. 
In  the  second  form  (Deut.  xxiv.  7),  the  matter  is  con- 
fined to  the  stealing  of  Hebrews,  and  the  thief  is  to  be 
put  to  death  if  he  be  found  stealing  or  selling  one  of  his 
brethren.  The  law  in  Deuteronomy  is  either  a  milder 
form  of  the  other,  or  to  be  understood  as  putting  a 
proper  interpretation  upon  the  other. 

Leprosy.  ■ — -  Delitzsch  ^  has  laid  down  the  safe  princi- 
ple that  where  there  are  "  in  Deuteronomy  references  to 
the  laws  which  are  fully  codified  by  the  Elohist,  these 
laws,  as  well  as  those  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  are 
to  be  looked  upon  as  antedating  Deuteronomy."  "  That 
this,"  he  goes  on  to  say,  "  is  true  of  the  law  of  Leviti- 
cus relating  to  the  leprosy  we  think  we  have  shown  in 
our  first  article.^  The  impressive  exhortation,  Deut. 
xxiv.  8,  to  hold  one's  self  obedient,  in  case  of  the  lep- 
rosy, to  the  directions  of  the  Levitical  priests,  which 
themselves,  in  turn,  rest  on  divine  instructions  {'as  I 
have  commanded  them '  ;  cf.  with  this  the  expression 
referring  to  the  law  of  the  Sabbath,  vs.  12),  presupposes 

1  Zeitschrift  fur  Kirchliche  IVisscnschaft,  etc.  1880,  p.  446.       ^  [i,id,  pp.  3-10, 


Laws  Repeated  and  Modified  in  Deuteronomy.     199 

the  existence  of  such  special  norms,  products  of  divine 
revelation,  as  stand  recorded  in  Lex.  xiii.,  xiv."  It  is 
not  easy  to  see  how  this  conclusion  of  Delitzsch  can  be 
avoided.  The  Book  of  the  Covenant  does  not  take  up 
the  subject.  Deuteronomy  refers  explicitly  to  instruc- 
tions somewhere  given  to  the  priests  concerning  it. 
They  are  found  in  full  in  Leviticus,  and  found  nowhere 
else. 

The  allusion  to  Miriam  in  Deut.  xxiv.  9  is  incidental, 
and  is  made,  apparently,  for  the  sake  of  warning,  lest 
one  expose  himself  by  disobedience  to  the  danger  of 
the  leprosy.  It  should  not  be  used  so  to  limit  the  pre- 
ceding verse  as  to  make  it  teach  that  if  the  people  are 
not  submissive  to  the  priests  they  will  be  liable  to 
attacks  from  this  dreadful  disease.  It  was  not  against 
the  priests,  but  against  Moses,  that  Miriam  and  Aaron, 
himself  the  head  of  the  priesthood,  had  shown  a  rebel- 
lious spirit.  The  rendering  of  vs.  8,  which  Schultz  and 
Keil  strangely  favor :  "  Take  heed  against  the  plague 
of  the  leprosy  by  observing  and  doing  according  to  all 
the  Levitical  priests,"  etc.,  is  not  only  grammatically 
less  to  be  recommended,  but  introduces  by  the  but-end 
an  incongruous  thought  into  the  context.  It  is  possible, 
indeed,  that  the  reference  is  to  Miriam's  exclusion  from 
camp,  and  solely  to  that,  showing  that  the  strictest 
rules  were  enforced  even  in  her  case,  and  hence  should 
be  in  that  of  all  others. 

Gleaning.  —  Of  the  law  in  Leviticus  in  behalf  of  the 
poor  (xix.  10),  that  the  corners  of  the  fields  and  the 
gleanings  as  well  of  vineyards  as  grainfields  are  to  be 
left  for  them,  Dillmann  ^  remarks  that  its  age  is  wit- 
nessed to  not  only  by  its  form,  but  by  its  repetition 
in  xxiii.   22,  and  in  Dcut.    xxiv.    19-22.     In  the   latter 

*  Cont.f  in  loco. 


200      The  Pentateuch  :    Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

passages  the  gleanings  of  olive-trees  and  sheaves  for- 
gotten in  the  harvesting  are  also  included  among  the 
perquisites  of  "strangers,  the  fatherless,  and  widow." 
It  was  a  goodly  land  upon  which  the  people  looked 
over  from  the  steppes  of  Moab.  What  wonder  that 
the  heart  grew  generous  in  view  of  it  ? 

Jiist  Weights  and  Measures.  —  As  it  has  just  oc- 
curred, and  not  infrequently  occurred,  so  here,  we  find 
Deuteronomy  doing  little  more  than  simply  repeating 
a  regulation  of  Leviticus  (xix.  35,  36  ;  cf.  Deut.  xxv. 
13-16)  in  a  slightly  altered  form.  The  language  of  the 
latter  betrays  no  sign  of  a  later  age,  and  still  less  does 
the  motive  which  is  urged  as  an  incentive :  the  fact  that 
God  had  brought  them  from  the  land  of  Egypt.  The 
style  of  Deuteronomy  is  more  popular,  it  has  fewer 
specifications  than  Leviticus,  but  it  is  one  with  it  in 
spirit  and  conveys  essentially  the  same  message.  The 
motive  it  offers,  as  over  against  that  of  the  parallel 
code,  is  strikingly  appropriate  to  the  alleged  circum- 
stances of  its  origin  :  "  In  order  that  thy  days  may  be 
prolonged  in  the  land  which  the  Lord  thy  God 
giveth  thee"  (cf.  iv.  26,  40;  v.  16,  30;  vi.  2;  xi.  9; 
xvii.  20;  xxii.  7;  xxv.  19;  xxviii.  8;  xxx.   16;  xxxi.   13). 

It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  our  code  ends,  as  it  began, 
with  a  reference  to  the  speedy  entrance  on  the  pos- 
session of  the  promised  land.  The  present  series  of 
laws  forms  no  exception  to  the  rest  of  the  code,  or  any 
of  the  codes,  in  the  fact  of  laying  emphasis  on  this 
impending  event.  The  chief  difference  between  Deu- 
teronomy and  the  middle  books  in  this  respect  is  that 
it  seems  to  feel  considerably  more  than  they  the 
nearness  of  Palestine.  The  legislation  of  PC,  like  its 
history,  is  more  appropriate  to  a  migratory  people, 
always  centring,  as  it  does,  about  the  tabernacle.     The 


Laws  Repeated  and  Modified  in  Deuteronomy.     20 1 

legislative  and  narrative  portions  of  Deuteronomy,  on 
the  other  hand,  are  more  appropriate  to  a  people  about 
to  settle  as  a  morally  and  politically  united  nation  in 
a  long-hoped-for  national  domain. 

Let  us,  in  conclusion,  briefly  recall  some  of  the  prin- 
cipal features  of  the  series  of  laws  just  considered. 
If  we  mistake  not,  they  have  an  important  bearing 
on  important  problems  of  the  criticism.  Among  the 
enactments  are  some,  as  for  example  that  enjoining  the 
wiping  out  of  unconquerably  hostile  Canaanitish  cities 
(xiii,  13-19;  XX.  15-18),  which,  on  the  supposition  of 
ungenuineness,  would  not  alone  be  senseless  —  they 
would  be  ridiculous.  There  are  still  others,  like  that 
which  specifies  a  single  characteristic  sin  in  a  certain 
category  of  unchastity  (xxiii.  i),  that  without  the  back- 
ground of  some  such  legislation  as  that  of  the  middle 
books  would  be  as  incomplete  as  the  law  against 
unclean  food  apart  from  specifications. 

There  are  others,  and  a  not  inconsiderable  list  of 
them,  which  plainly  appear  to  be  laws  of  the  so-called 
"Priests'  Code"  modified,  sometimes  slightly  changed 
in  form,  sometimes  essentially  supplemented.  The 
changes  are  precisely  of  the  nature  to  be  expected,  if 
the  history  actually  took  the  course  it  is  said  to  have 
taken  (xiv.  21  ;  xv,  i-ii  ;  xvii.  6,  7  ;  xix.  15,  16;  xxiii. 
20,  21).  And  it  is  particularly  significant  that  we  have 
found  instances,  both  where  there  was  an  indirect 
assumption  of  another  and  a  fuller  code  existing  else- 
where, and  instances  of  the  direct  and,  as  it  seems  to 
us,  indisputable  citation  of  such  a  code  (xx.  1 8 ;  xxiv.  8) 
—  citations  made  for  the  apparent  purpose  of  calling  it 
to  mind  and  enforcing  its  injunctions. 

Then,  too,  here,  as  elsewhere,  the  peculiar  form  of  the 
Deuteronomic  code  has  attracted  our  attention.     It  is 


202        The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

adapted  to  the  supposed  occasion  of  a  popular  assem- 
bly. It  is  simple  in  style.  The  technical  language  of 
the  preceding  books  disappears.  The  laws  meant  only 
for  the  priests  are  left  out  entirely.  A  difficult  or 
dubious  term  that  we  have  in  the  parallel  passage  in 
Leviticus,  for  example,  is  here  explained  as  meaning 
woolen  mixed  with  linen  (xxii.  ii).  Of  Moloch,  the 
Ammonite  deity,  mentioned  again  and  again  in  Leviti- 
cus, we  hear  not  a  word  here ;  but  more  than  once  the 
warning  is  sounded  against  the  abominable  rite  of  pass- 
ing children  through  the  fire  (xii.  31  ;  xviii.  10).  The 
practice  of  deceiving  in  the  matter  of  weights  and 
measures  is  here  alone  forbidden  in  the  picturesque 
form  :  "  Thou  shalt  not  have  in  thy  wallet  a  stone  and 
a  stone,  a  great  and  a  small  one.  Thou  shalt  not  have 
in  thy  house  an  ephod  and  an  ephod,  a  great  and  a 
small  one"  (xxv.  13-16). 

Nearly  all  the  laws  of  Deuteronomy,  moreover,  are 
marked  by  a  peculiarly  hortatory,  rather  than  a  merely 
prohibitive,  style.  The  "  thou  shalt  not "  of  Mount 
Sinai  has  largely  taken  on  a  pathetic  "  O,  do  not " 
of  expostulation  and  affectionate  appeal.  What  is 
enjoined  is  not  alone  put  upon  the  conscience  of  the 
individual  Israelite :  he  is  expected  to  lay  it  to  heart. 
Each  of  the  codes  treats  of  the  respect  that  is  due  to 
the  poor  and  the  helpless  ;  but  neither  of  the  others  to 
the  extent  that  it  is  done  in  this.  It  is  exactly  in  the 
spirit  of  Deuteronomy  to  enjoin  that  the  back  of  the 
enfranchised  slave  be  loaded  down  with  gifts  from 
granary  and  wine-press  (xv.  14).  It  is  just  like  it  to 
call  attention  to  the  circumstance  that  the  day-laborer 
"sets  his  heart"  upon  his  earnings  and  to  urge  that 
he  be  paid  the  wage  of  the  day  on  his  day  (xxiv.  15). 

There  is  evidently  a  purpose  in  all  this.     As  it  seems 


Laws  Repeated  aiid  Modified  in  Deuteronomy.     203 

to  us,  it  cannot  lie  far  off  from  that  other  purpose  which 
prompted  Moses  to  rehearse  to  the  people  their  own 
code  in  a  language  they  could  understand  and  to  pro- 
vide for  this  whole  impressive  scene  just  preceding,  as 
we  are  told,  the  exit  of  the  great  lawgiver  from  the 
stage  of  Jewish  history.  Alike  the  style  of  speech  and 
the  spirit  of  it  harmonize  perfectly  with  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case  as  they  are  frankly  recited  in  the 
eleven  chapters  that  introduce  the  code  of  Deuter- 
onomy and  the  eight  that  follow  it.  With  those  other 
circumstances  in  the  days  of  King  Josiah  (b.c.  621), 
alleged  to  be  the  real  historic  setting  of  these  laws, 
clearly  and  emphatically  they  do  not  harmonize. 

For  strictly  speaking  this  is  not  legislation.  It  is 
next  to  impossible  that  it  should  be  legislation  in  its 
earliest,  rudimental  form.  It  is  rather  the  admonition 
that  follows  the  precept,  Moses  performing  the  office  of 
prophet,  after  fulfilling  so  well  the  office  of  leader  and 
legislator.  It  is  the  same  voice  that  we  hear  speaking, 
but  one  grown  somewhat  tremulous  with  age  and  full 
of  the  tenderness  of  a  farewell  utterance. 

Mark  the  motives  to  which  appeal  is  made.  These 
are  the  thousands  of  Israel,  fresh  from  a  pilgrimage  of 
forty  years  in  the  rough  wilderness  skirting  the  south- 
ern borders  of  Canaan.  But  they  are  addressed  as  any 
audience  of  Bible-educated  people  in  similar  circum- 
stances might  be  addressed.  The  standard  that  is  set 
for  them  —  how  far  short  does  it  come  of  that  which  is 
set  for  us  by  the  teachers  and  preachers  of  to-day  .''  If 
there  be  imperfectness  of  form,  there  is  surely  none  in 
spirit.     It  is  a  spirit  that  we  recognize  as  divine. 

As  wc  have  already  said,  with  the  whole  Pentateuch 
before  us,  with  the  certain  knowledge  that  all  its  sub- 
lime history  was  enacted  just  as  it  is  recorded,  and  just 


204       The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Stmctiire. 

as  it  is  claimed  to  have  been  enacted  by  those  in  circum- 
stances to  know  most  about  it,  we  cannot  cease  to 
wonder  at  such  a  people;  that  "at  the  moment  which 
ended  their  tent-life  in  the  wilderness,  and  which  imme- 
diately preceded  their  entrance  upon  the  land  assigned 
them  .  .  .  they,  in  full  ecclesia,  might  properly  be 
taught,  advised,  upbraided,  promised,  threatened,  in  the 
manner  of  which  the  closing  book  of  the  Pentateuch  is 
the  record  and  summary."  ^  But  if  you  take  away  the 
Pentateuch  as  a  record  of  facts ;  if  you  take  away  the 
history  whose  source  and  inspiration  is  Mount  Sinai, 
and  that  is  broken  in  upon,  as  this  purports  to  be,  by 
divine  interpositions  ;  if,  above  all,  you  take  away  the 
educating  influence  of  the  tabernacle  and  its  worship, 
we  have  a  riddle  on  our  hands  more  perplexing  by  far 
than  that  offered  by  any  irregularities  of  the  codes.  It 
was  the  apostle  James  who  said  :  "  Show  me  thy  faith 
apart  from  works  and  I  will  show  thee  my  faith  by  my 
works."  Show  me  a  Deuteronomic  people  without  the 
patriarchal  history,  without  Exodus  and  Leviticus,  and 
I  will  show  you  one  that  these  histories  and  laws  were 
calculated  to  produce  as  nothing  else  could. 

To  stigmatize  such  efforts  as  the  foregoing,  to  adjust 
the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  to  one  another  on  the 
theory  of  a  common  origin,  a  theory  which  has  the 
support  of  the  books  themselves  and  all  that  can 
properly  be  called  biblical  history,  as  "traditional" 
and  "harmonistic,"  does  not  establish  a  contrary  con- 
clusion. If  there  were  nothing  else  to  stimulate  and 
recommend  such  efforts  the  alternative  offered  by  our 
critics  would  of  itself  be  sufficient  :  a  veritable  Tohtl 
Vdbhohil  (Gen.  i,  2)  over  which  broods  no  Spirit  of  God 
to  call  order  out  of  the  confusion. 

>  Isaac  Taylor,  The  Spirit  of  Hebrew  Poetry,  p.  169. 


Table  of  Laws  Reviewed. 


205 


TABLE   OF  LAWS    REVIEWED   IN   THE   LAST 
THREE   PAPERS. 


Subject. 

1  Introductory, 

2  Destruction  of  idols,  etc., 

3  Centralization  of  worship, 

4  Worship  of  Moloch, 

5  Seduction  to  idolatry, 

6  Destruction  of    Canaanitish 

cities, 

7  Forbidden  mourninK  customs, 

8  Food  as  clean  and  unclean, 

9  Animals  eaten  to  be  properly 

slain, 
10  Offerings, 

n  Sabbatic  Year, 

12  Releaseof  Hebrew  servants, 

13  Sacrifices  to  be  faultless, 

14  The  feasts, 

15  Judges  and  Officers, 

16  Oppression  of  the  poor, 

17  Punishment  of  Ueorew  Idol- 

aters, 

18  Witnesses  needful, 

19  The  king, 

20  Priests  and  Levites, 

21  Magical  arts,  etc., 

22  The  prophet, 

23  Cities  of  refuge, 

24  Removing  Landmark, 

25  False  witness, 

26  Preparation  for  battle, 

27  Hostile  cities, 

28  Purification  for  murder, 

29  Female  captives, 

30  Right  of  inheritance, 
U  Disobedient  son, 

ii  Hanging, 

33  Property  of  a  brother  Israelite, 

$4  Kindness  to  animals, 

35  Regard  for  liuiuan  life, 

%  Mixing  of  diverse  things, 

37  Fringes, 

58  Charge  of  unchastity, 

59  Sin  against  chastity, 

W  Persons  shutout  01  the  con- 
gregation, 
H  Cleanliness  of  the  camp, 
(2  Fugitive  slave, 
13  Prostitution, 
U  Usury, 

15  Vows, 

16  Divorce, 
VI  Pledges, 

18  Man-stealing, 

19  Leprosy, 

50  CJleaning, 

51  Forty  stripes, 

52  Leviratc  marriage, 

5;!  Punishment  of  immodesty, 

54  Just  weights  and  measurrs, 

55  Amalek, 

56  Offering  of  llrst-fruits,  etc. 


DKtlTEBONOMY. 

Exodus. 

Numbers. 

12:1  (see  Hebrew  text 

throughout). 

, 

,        , 

•    • 

12:2-4,29,  30;  4: 15-19; 

23:24,33; 

,34:12-17; 

N.  33:51,  52 

7:5,25,26;  20:18 

cf.23:13. 

12:6-28;  cf.  2G:2tf. 

20:24,25; 

i  34 :  23-26 

L.  17  :  1  ff.  e<  pas- 
sim. 

12:31;  cf   18:10 

, 

^        , 

L.  18:21;  20:2-5 

13:1-19;  16:21-^2 
13:13-19;  20:15-18 

, 

,        , 

•        •         • 

23:23,24, 

27-33;  34: 

N.  33:  50-56 

12-16 

14:1,2 

, 

,        ^ 

L.  19:27,28;  21:5 
L.  11 :  1-21,  22-43 

14:3,20 

. 

.        . 

14:21 

22:30 

L. 17 : 15 

14:22-29;  cf  12:17-19; 

22:29;   23:18,  19  a; 

N.    18  :  21-32    et 

15:19-23;  26:12-19 

34 :  19,  20,  25,  26  a. 

passim, 
L.  25 : 1-7 

15:1-11 

23:9-11 

15:12-18 

21:  2-6 

L.  25:39-46 

15:19-23;  17:1 

L.  22:  19-27 

16:  1-17 

23:14-17; 

34:*  21-23 

L.  23:4  ff.-.    N.28: 

16:18-20;  19:8-13 

lift-. 

16:19-20;  24:  14,  15 

22:21-24 

L.  19:  33, 34 

17 :  2-5 ;  cf.  4 :  19 

22:19 

,        , 

17:6,  7;  cf.  19:  15,  16 

, 

,        ^ 

•N.35:30 

17 :  14-20 

• 

^        , 

•        •        • 

18:1-8 

,        , 

L.  7:8-10;  10:14,15 
N.  18:8-20 

18:9-14 

22:17 

L.  19:26,  31;    20:6, 

18:15-22 

27;    N.23:23 

19:1-13;  cf.  4:  41-43  j 

21:13 

N.  35:  1-34 

23:16 

19:14 

^ 

^       ^ 

•        •        • 

19:15-21 

23:1-3 

L.  19:  12,  15,16 

20:1-9;  24:5 

, 

•        • 

.        •        - 

20:10-14,19,20 

, 

•        • 

•        •        ■ 

21:1-9 

• 

•        • 

•         .        • 

21:10-14 

, 

,        , 

•        ■        • 

21:15-17 

, 

,        , 

N.27:lff.jch.36 

21:18-21 

, 

^        , 

•        •        > 

21:22-23 

, 

,        ^ 

•        •        ■ 

22 : 1-4 

23:4,5 

•        •        • 

22:  6,7;  cf.  14:21;  25:  ■ 

4  23:191;  ! 

J4 :  26  6. 

L.  22:28 

22:8 

, 

,        , 

•        .       ■ 

22 :  5,  9-11 

^ 

•        ■ 

L.  19:19 

22:12 

, 

N.  15:37-41 

22 :  13-21 

, 

^         , 

■         •        • 

22:22-29;  2;?:  1 

22!  16. 18 

L.    18:    6-30;     20: 
10-26. 

23:2-9 

, 

■        • 

■         ■        • 

23:10-15 

, 

•       • 

L.  15:  l-,3'!;  N.  5: 

23:16,17 

^ 

1-4  etvassimy 

23:18,19 

, 

,        , 

L.18i22|  19:29 

23:2t\21 

22:24 

L.  2.5:3.5-;!7 

23:22-24;  cf.  12:6,  11, 

•        • 

L.chs.7,22,23,2r; 

17,26 

N.  chs.  6, 15,  29, 

24:1-4 

, 

,        , 

3U 

24:6,10-13,17,18 

22:25,26 

... 

24:7 

21:16 

.    .    * 

24:8.9 

■        • 

I^  chs.  13.  14 

24 :  19-22 

• 

a       • 

L.  10:0,  10;  23:22 

25:1-3 

, 

,       , 

•    •    • 

2.5 : 5-10 

, 

•       • 

«    •    • 

25:11,  12 

^ 

•       • 

.    .    ■ 

2.5 :  13-1() 

• 

•       • 

L.  19:35,36 

2.5:  17-19 

• 

•       • 

•        •        • 

2G:  1-19 

•      • 

•        •       • 

VI. 

LAWS  PECULIAR  TO  THE  "  PRIESTS'  CODE." 


On  the  theory  that  Moses  led  the  Israehtes  out  of 
Egypt,  something  within  the  Mosaic  period  answering 
to  the  priestly  legislation  of  Leviticus  and  Numbers  is 
not  only  a  natural,  but  almost  a  necessary,  presumption. 
Of  the  four  great  castes  of  Egypt,  that  of  the  priests 
was  second  in  rank,  holding  in  fact  the  same  relation  to 
the  king  that  in  Israel  the  high-priest  held  to  Moses 
and  his  successors.  The  description  Herodotus  gives 
of  the  Egyptian  priests,  their  dress,  their  means  of 
support,  the  advantages  they  enjoyed  and  the  influence 
they  exerted,  reminds  us,  at  every  step,  of  the  priestly 
class  in  Israel.^ 

When  Pharaoh  would  honor  Joseph,  he  gives  him  his 

1  "  They  are  religious  to  excess,  far  beyond  any  other  race  of  men,  and  use  the  follow- 
ing ceremonies:  They  drink  out  of  brazen  cups,  which  they  scour  every  day:  there  is 
no  exception  to  this  practice.  They  wear  linen  garments,  which  they  are  especially 
careful  to  have  always  fresh  washed.  They  practise  circumcision  for  the  sake  of  cleanli- 
ness, considering  it  better  to  be  cleanly  than  comely.  The  priests  shave  their  whole  body 
every  other  day,  that  no  lice  or  other  impure  thing  may  adhere  to  them  when  they  are 
engaged  in  the  service  of  the  gods.  Their  dress  is  entirely  of  linen,  and  their  shoes  of  the 
papyrus  plant:  it  is  not  lawful  for  them  to  wear  either  dress  or  shoes  of  any  other  material. 
They  bathe  twice  every  day  in  cold  water,  and  twice  each  night,  besides  which  they 
observe,  so  to  speak,  thousands  of  ceremonies.  They  enjoy,  however,  not  a  few  advan- 
tages. They  consume  none  of  their  own  property  and  are  at  no  expense  for  anything; 
but  every  day  bread  is  baked  for  them  of  the  sacred  corn,  and  a  plentiful  supply  of  beet 
and  of  goose's  flesh  is  assigned  to  each,  and  also  a  portion  of  wine  made  from  the  grape. 
Fish  they  are  not  allowed  to  eat;  and  beans  —  which  none  of  the  Egyptians  ever  sow, 
or  eat,  if  they  come  up  of  their  own  accord,  either  raw  or  boiled  —  the  priests  will  not 
even  endure  to  look  on,  since  they  consider  it  an  unclean  kind  of  pulse.  Instead  of  a 
single  priest,  each  god  has  the  attendance  of  a  college,  at  the  head  of  which  is  a  chief 
priest;  when  one  of  these  dies,  his  son  is  appointed  in  his  stead." — See  Rawlinson's 
Herodotus,  ii.  p.  65  f. 


Laws  Peculiar  to  the  ^^ Priests  Code"  207 

signet-ring  and  marries  him  to  a  daughter  of  the  priest 
of  On.  Moses,  the  adopted  son  of  an  Egyptian  prin- 
cess, brought  up  in  all  "the  wisdom  of  Egypt,"  was  also 
the  son-in-law  of  a  priest  of  Midian.^  For  forty  years 
he  pastured  his  sheep  on  that  very  peninsula  of  Sinai 
where  afterward,  for  forty  years,  he  led  the  flock  of 
God.  The  name  he  gives  his  first-born  ^  sufficiently 
proves  his  loyalty,  during  this  period  of  training,  to  his 
own  nation  and  its  traditions.  And  it  is  not  a  position 
that  surprises  us  by  its  boldness,  when  Bertheau  claims 
that  Moses  in  Midian  came  in  contact  with  a  form 
of  the  faith  of  his  Shemitic  ancestors  purer  than  that 
prevailing  among  the  Hebrew  abjects  of  Egypt.^ 

However  this  may  be,  it  is  certain  that  the  law  and 
ritual  of  the  Israelites,  while  not  a  little  colored  by 
those  of  Egypt,  no  less  find  justification  in  the  con- 
temporaneous monuments  of  allied  Shemitic  races,  like 
the  Phoenician  and  the  Assyrian.  "  Among  both  we 
find  traces  of  sacrifices  and  institutions  which  offer 
many  parallels  to  the  religious  ordinances  of  Moses. 
Besides  the  Sabbath  .  .  .  the  Babylonians  and  Assyr- 
ians had  various  festivals  and  fasts,  on  which  certain 
rites  had  to  be  performed  and  certain  sacrifices  offered  ; 
they  knew  of  '  peace-offerings  '  and  of  '  heave-offerings,' 
of  the  dedication  of  the  first-born  and  of  sacrifices  for 
sin.  The  gods  were  carried  in  procession  in  'ships,' 
which,  as  we  learn  from  the  sculptures,  resembled  in 
form  the  Hebrew  ark  and  were  borne  on  men's 
shoulders  by  means  of  staves.  In  the  front  of  the 
image  of  the  gods  stood  a  table,  on  which  shew-bread 
was  laid  ;  and  a  distinction  was  made  between  the  meat- 
ier. Geike,  Hours  with  the  Bible,  ii.  86-114;  Sayce,  Fresh  Lightfrom  the  Ancient 
Monuments,  p.  71  f. 

*  Ger shorn  =  a  stranger  there. 

^Geschichte,  p.  242.   Cf.,  however,  KurtZj  Hist,  of  the  Old  Covenant,  ii.  p.  195. 


2o8       The  Pentateiicli :  Its  Origin  and  Strnctiire. 

offering  and  the  animal  sacrifice.  Certain  unclean 
kinds  of  food  were  forbidden,  including  the  flesh  of 
swine  and  creeping  things  ;  and  in  the  outer  court  were 
large  lavers  called  '  seas,'  like  the  sea  of  Solomon's 
temple,  in  which  the  worshipers  were  requested  to 
cleanse  themselves.  Many  of  these  regulations  and 
rites  came  down  from  the  Accadians  (Gen.  x.  lo),  who 
founded  the  great  cities  of  ancient  Chaldaea  and  were 
the  inventors  of  the  hieroglyphics  afterward  developed 
and  the  cuneiform  character  of  the  Assyrian."  ^ 

To  assume,  accordingly,  that  the  priestly  legislation 
and  ritual  of  Israel,  regarded  as  Mosaic,  are,  on  their 
face,  anachronistic,  is  to  assume  what  the  monuments 
disprove.  To  assume  that  prophets  in  Israel  must 
have  preceded  priests,  the  so-called  Jehovistic  writings 
the  Elohistic,  the  protevangelium  of  the  second  chap- 
ter of  Genesis  the  sacrifices  of  the  first,  is  to  assume 
what  the  literature  of  contemporaneous  peoples  would 
lead  us  to  regard  as  most  improbable.^  It  was  to  the 
priests  of  Egypt  that  was  given  the  care  and  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  sacred  books.  Not  only  was  the 
prophet  not  superior  to  the  priest,  but  prophecy  was 
regarded  as  a  subordinate  function  of  the  priesthood 
itself.  The  very  name  employed  to  designate  the 
Egyptian  written  character  (hieratic),  on  which  the 
alphabetic  systems  of  most  other  peoples  have  been 
based,  like  its  companion  word  "hieroglyphic,"  shows 
how  predominant  was  the  position  of  the  priesthood 
among  this  most  ancient  of  civilized  peoples. 

1  See  Sayce,  ibid.  p.  77  f. 

^  See  Rawlinson's  Herod,  ii.  p.  67,  note;  and  the  opening  sentence  of  the  "  Decree  "  of 
the  Rosetta  Stone  in  Records  of  the  Past,  iv.  p.  71.  In  the  "  Decree  of  Canopus,"  a 
document  nearly  a  century  older  than  the  Rosetta  Stone  there  is  still  further  confirmation 
of  the  statement  that  the  priestly  office  was  sometimes  understood  to  include  the  pro- 
phetical {Records  0/  the  Past,  \m.  p.  85);  "And  they  should  be  called  priests  of  the 
benevolent  gods  in  their  name,  that  they  should  occupy  a  higher  rank  through  the  name 
of  their  office;  and  of  their  place  as  prophet  thereof,"  etc. 


Laivs  Pecidiar  to  the  ''Priests'  Code."  269 

We  are  permitted  then  to  begin  the  investigation  of 
the  so-called  "  Priests'  Code  "  of  the  Pentateuch  with  a 
strong  presumption  in  favor  of  its  genuineness.  Such 
a  series  of  laws  might  have  been  given  by  a  Moses  of 
the  exodus,  might  even  have  been  expected  from  him, 
were  he  to  figure  at  all  in  the  character  of  a  lawgiver. 
And  the  question  that,  in  the  present  paper,  we  have 
to  answer  is.  Do  these  laws  in  their  present  form,  when 
examined  in  detail,  necessitate  the  theory  of  a  later 
date }  Is  there  anything  about  them  that  should  lead 
to  the  certain  conclusion  or  render  probable,  notwith- 
standing the  plausibility  and  practicability  of  the 
traditional  view  as  sustained  by  the  monuments,  the 
position  that  they  are  neither  the  production  of  Moses 
nor  come  from  his  age  }  Every  law  peculiar  to  the 
"  Priests'  Code "  and  not  hitherto  examined  by  us, 
including  Lev.  xvii.-xxvi.,  will  be  passed  under  review. 

Coticerning  Blasphemy  (Lev.  xxiv.  15,  16;  Num. 
XV.  30,  31). — The  law  against  blasphemy  is  but  the 
negative  side  of  the  demand  that  due  honor  shall  be 
paid  to  Jehovah,  the  unseen  King.  It  is  no  more  out 
of  place,  therefore,  in  the  Mosaic  period,  in  itself  con- 
sidered, than  the  first  and  second  precepts  of  the 
decalogue.  It  is,  in  fact,  but  another  form  of  the 
commandment  :  "  Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of 
the  Lord  thy  God  in  vain."  It  finds  an  echo  in  still 
another  injunction  of  the  Sinaitic  code  (Ex.  xxii,  27). 

Moreover,  it  purports  to  be  the  outcome  of  an  actual 
event  of  the  Mosaic  history  (Lev.  xxiv.  10-14).  We 
are  informed  in  the  context  that  the  son  of  an  Israel- 
itish  woman,  whose  father  was  an  Egyptian,  had  been 
detected  "execrating  the  name."  Inquiry  is  made 
of  the  Lord  by  Moses  to  learn  what  shall  be  done 
with  him.     It  is   enjoined  that  he  shall  be  stoned  by 


2IO       The  Pejitatctich  :  Its  Orizin  and  StmcUire. 


i3  ' 


the  whole  congregation  "  without  the  camp."  Then 
follows  the  law  which  is  to  govern  in  similar  cases. 
Dillmann  ^  thinks  he  sees  evidence  that  it  is  somewhat 
older  than  the  history  here  made  its  setting.  Be  that 
as  it  may,  there  is  not  a  scintilla  of  proof  that  either 
is  post-Mosaic.  The  contrary  is  sustained  by  both 
circumstantial  and  direct  evidence.  The  whole  con- 
ception of  the  crime  of  blasphemy  was  revolutionized 
among  the  post-exilian  Jews  (2  Mace.  x.  4,  36). 
Malachi  used  terms  for  characterizing  the  offence 
that  are  unknown  to  Leviticus  (i.  6,  12).  Meanwhile 
it  is  the  Levitical  form  of  the  law  that  is  enforced 
in  so  flagrant  and  unjust  a  way  by  Jezebel's  emissaries 
in  the  northern  kingdom,  before  the  close  of  the  tenth 
century  (i  Kings  xxi.). 

T/ie  Sacred  Vestmetits  (Ex.  xxviii.  1-43).  —  Like 
the  priestly  class  of  contemporaneous  peoples,  the 
priesthood  of  Israel,  also,  was  to  be  distinguished  by 
a  peculiar  official  dress.  An  entire  chapter,  it  will  be 
observed,  is  devoted  to  its  details.  With  a  strong 
Egyptian  caste  throughout,  it  shows,  perhaps,  an  equal 
acquaintance  with  the  customs  of  a  Shemitic  ancestry. 
Linen  was  the  fabric  uniformly  employed  for  clothing 
by  the  priests  of  Egypt  ;  while,  if  we  may  trust  the 
frescos  of  Egyptian  dwellings,  delight  in  colors  was 
a  marked  Shemitic  trait.^  The  hand-loom  and  its 
appurtenances  had  long  been  a  familiar  piece  of 
domestic  furniture.  Needlework  with  gold  thread, 
as  well  as  cord  made  from  twisted  gold  wire,  were 
common  devices  for  ornamentation.  Linen  corselets, 
engraved  stones,  and  even  something  answering  in 
kind  to  the  mysterious  Urim  and  Thummim  of  the 
Jewish    high-priest,    might    all    have    been    suggested 

1  Com.,  in  loco.  -  Cf.  Rawlinson  in  Pulpit  Com.  on  Exodus,  ii.  p.  280. 


Laws  P ecu! i a.-  to  the  '^Priests   Codg''  2il 

by  Egyptian  precedents.  The  pomegranate  tassel, 
on  the  other  hand,  was  an  Assyrian  device,  together 
with  bells  of  the  present  modern  shape.  Hence 
it  may  be  seen  that  the  directions  for  clothing  the 
Jewish  priests  are  everywhere  stamped  with  marks 
of  the  Mosaic  age.  What  is  characteristic  in  them 
characterizes  as  well  oriental  antiquities  in  general. 

But  there  are  also  considerations  of  a  more  positive 
nature  to  be  presented.  Delitzsch,  for  example,  has 
called  attention  to  the  several  colors  employed  in 
the  Jewish  high-priest's  ephod.^  They  are  the  same 
that  are  found  in  the  coverings  of  the  sanctuary.  In 
the  case  of  two  of  these,  the  technical  terms  used 
to  designate  them  occur  only  in  the  Elohistic  por- 
tions of  the  Pentateuch.  If  these  sections  were 
a  product  of  the  exile,  we  might  expect  to  meet 
with  the  given  terms  in  the  literature  of  that  period. 
But  this  is  conspicuously  not  the  case. 

The  word  for  red pwple,  for  instance,  in  our  code  and 
throughout  the  Elohistic  Torah  is  argaman?  At  the 
time  of  the  exile,  this  had  become  corrupted  into  the 
half-Aramaic,  half-Persian  argezuati.  The  color  known 
in  the  earlier  period  as  tola'atJi  shani,  scarlet  or  crimson, 
the  Chronicler,  representing  the  latest  stage  of  the  lan- 
guage and  that  which,  on  the  hypothesis  should  be,  but 
is  not,  used  in  the  regulations  before  us,  has  changed  to 
karmil?  Such  indications  as  these  no  scholar  will  feel 
inclined  to  overlook.  They  are  of  the  nature  of  those 
inimitable  vegetable  and  animal  formations  which  have 
left  here  and  there  an  impression  on  the  broken  surface 
of  our  globe  and  have  become  the  accepted  data  for 
determining  its  geological  periods. 

'  Preface  to  Curtiss's  Levitical  Priests,  p.  xi. 
^  I  employ  here  Delitzsch's  transliteration. 
'  Cf.  2  Chron.  ii.  6. 


±  i  2        TJie  Pc^itateucJi :  Its  Orisrin  mid  Structure, 


■i>' 


So,  too,  the  history  of  the  Urim  and  Thummim 
furnishes  something  more  than  a  hint  in  the  same 
direction.  Just  what  this  device  was  and  how  it  was 
employed,  we  need  not  now  stop  to  inquire.  Perhaps  it 
will  never  be  fully  known.  The  very  mystery  that,  to 
us,  overhangs  the  subject  is  significant.  There  appears 
to  be  none  in  the  minds  of  biblical  writers.  Previous 
acquaintance  is  assumed  in  the  manner  of  its  intro- 
duction. There  is  no  effort  at  explanation.  Let  it  be 
supposed  now,  for  the  moment,  that  our  code  arose  in 
Ezra's  day  and  that  what  we  glean  from  the  historical 
books  concerning  this  oracle  of  light  and  right  furnishes 
the  needed  information  concerning  it.  But  this  is  pre- 
cisely what  we  are  not  permitted  to  suppose.  It  would 
be  placing  the  pyramid  on  its  apex. 

So  far  from  finding  a  development  in  the  matter  from 
the  Mosaic  period  downward,  we  find  the  opposite. 
Abiathar  of  David's  time  is  the  last  of  whom  it  is  said 
that  he  made  use  of  the  Urim  and  Thummim.  We 
discover  Eleazer,  Aaron's  successor,  wearing  it  as  a 
fitting  part  of  his  high-priestly  furnishing  (Num.  xxvi'. 
2i).  We  find  it  mentioned  as  one  of  the  distinguishing 
honors  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  by  Moses  in  his  blessing 
(Deut.  xxxiii.  8).  But  the  history  subsequent  to  Solo- 
mon's day  is  wholly  silent  respecting  it.  And,  still 
more  noticeably,  that  of  the  exile  furnishes  positive 
evidence  that  it  had  then  ceased  to  exist  (Ezra  ii.  63  ; 
Neh.  vii.  65).  Questions  of  priestly  genealogy  are  by 
common  consent  postponed  until  there  shall  arise  a 
priest  with  Urim  and  Thummim.  We  know,  further, 
that  he  was  waited  for  in  vain.  The  generation  of  the 
Maccabees  (i  Mace.  iv.  46;  xiv.  41),  two  centuries  later, 
are  prosecuting  still  the  same  hopeless  quest.  With  the 
rise  of  prophecy  this  earlier  and  ruder  style  of  divine 


Laws  Peculiar  to  the  '^Priests'  Codey  213 

communication  had  forever  passed  away.  The  later 
yearning  for  its  restoration  was  no  sign  of  development, 
but  of  decadence.  The  principle  underlying  our  Lord's 
words,  "  It  is  expedient  for  you  that  I  go  away,"  is 
applicable  to  all  times.  The  prophet  was  greater  than 
the  seer.  To  bring  back  deliverances  by  Urim  and 
Thummim  after  the  former  had  done,  for  the  time,  his 
work  was  to  face  toward  the  wilderness  instead  of 
toward  Him  in  whom  all  prophecy  culminated  and 
had  its  supreme  embodiment. 

The  Consecration  of  Priests  (Ex.  xxix.  1-42 ;  Lev.  vi. 
12-16;  viii.). — The  ceremony  of  consecrating  the  sons 
of  Aaron  to  the  priesthood  consisted  mainly  in  these 
four  things :  ablution,  investiture,  anointing,  and  sacri- 
fice. The  first,  as  a  symbol  of  moral  purity,  is  common 
to  all  religions,  especially  to  the  Egyptian.  The  appro- 
priateness of  the  dress  of  Israelitish  priests  to  the 
circumstances  of  their  supposed  origin  has  already  been 
considered.  The  rite  of  anointing  as  a  sign  of  conse- 
cration is  a  peculiarity  of  the  Jewish  dispensation  and 
of  that  which  sprung  from  it.  Its  underlying  idea  is 
devotement.  The  person  or  thing  so  anointed  was  set 
apart  for  God,  as  purified  and  well-pleasing  in  his  sight. 
This  is  the  import  of  the  declaration  in  Leviticus 
where  we  read  (viii.  12):  "And  he  poured  some  of 
the  anointing  oil  on  Aaron's  head,  and  anointed  him, 
to  sanctify  him."  The  use  in  Egypt  and  among  other 
nations  of  antiquity  of  perfumed  oils  for  medical  pur- 
poses and  as  a  luxury  is  too  well  known  to  need 
enlargement.  So  skilfully  was  it  prepared  that  speci- 
mens from  the  times  of  the  Pharaohs,  still  redolent 
of  rare  spices,  have  come  down  to  our  day.^ 

Why  it  was  that  the  Jews  alone,  as  far  as  we  know, 

1  See  'Richm's  HandwSr/erduck,  s.v.  "  Salbe." 


214       The  PentatcucJi:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

anointed  with  oil  as  a  rite  of  inauguration,  having  a 
special  word  to  distinguish  the  sacred  from  the  secular 
use,  may  be  as  difficult  to  explain  as  some  other  facts 
in  the  history  of  this  singular  people.  But  there  is 
nothing  in  the  circumstance  that  can  suggest  an 
innovation  of  a  later  day.  On  the  contrary,  the  usages 
of  a  later  day,  as  already  shown,^  differ  essentially 
from  those  of  the  supposed  Mosaic  period.  There  is  no 
evidence  that  when  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  were  on  the 
stage  the  high-priest  was  anointed  at  all  (cf.  Zech.  iii.). 
And  there  is  just  as  little  evidence  that,  after  their 
original  consecration  in  the  sons  of  Aaron,  ordinary 
priests  were  ever  again  anointed  on  entering  upon  their 
office  (Ex.  xxix.  29  f.  ;  cf.  xxviii.  41  ;  xxx.  30;  xl.  15  ; 
Lev.  vii.  36  ;  x.  7 ;  Num.  iii.  3). 

The  matter  of  the  offerings  made  by  priests  on  the 
occasion  of  their  consecration  (Ex.  xxix.  38-42 ;  vi 
12-16  ;  viii.)  presents  no  features  requiring  special  com- 
ment. The  dividing  of  a  victim  sacrificed  was  a  wide- 
spread custom  throughout  the  East  ;  as  was  also  the 
ceremony  of  filling  the  hands  of  an  official  at  the  time 
of  his  installation  with  the  insignia  of  his  office.  That 
in  the  midst  of  this  solemn  ritual  we  find  evidence  here 
and  there  that  the  physical  necessities  of  God's  servants 
are  not  left  wholly  unprovided  for  is  no  symptom  that 
our  document  is  of  priestly  origin.  It  serves  rather  to 
show  that  Moses  who  through  a  whole  generation  acted 
the  part  of  purveyor  and  commissary-in-chief  as  well 
as  military  and  religious  leader  was  true  to  himself. 
Indeed,  it  is  on  the  alleged  utterances  of  Moses  that 
Paul  bases  the  principle  that  those  who  "preach  the 
Gospel  are  to  live  of  the  Gospel  "  (i  Cor.  ix.  4,  9  ; 
I  Tim.  v.  18 ;  cf.  Deut.  xxv.  4). 

1  See  above,  p.  119, 


Laws  Peculiar  to  tJic  ''Priests   Code."  215 

The  Anointing  Oil  (Ex.  xxx.  22-33).  —  Besides  the 
fact  already  mentioned,  that  the  anointing  of  the  high- 
priest  at  his  installation  cannot  be  historically  verified 
as  a  custom  of  the  later  times,^  there  are  other  circum- 
stances of  interest  connected  with  the  anointing  oil. 
Of  the  four  varieties  of  spices  entering  into  its  compo- 
sition, only  one,  cinnamon,  could  have  been  rare  in 
Moses'  day.  It  is  but  three  times  spoken  of  in  the 
Bible  (Prov.  vii,  17;  Cant.  iv.  14).  Still,  Herodotus 
cites  it  as  an  article  of  commerce  from  Arabia  ^  and 
claims  a  Shemitic  origin  for  its  present  universal  name. 
The  point  of  difficulty  with  the  later  Jews,  it  is  likely, 
consisted  not  in  the  nature  of  the  materials  employed, 
but  in  the  peculiar  method  of  composition.  It  was  not 
a  bald  mixture  of  spices  with  oil.  It  was  the  product 
of  acquired  skill,  such  as  only  a  Bezaleel  possessed 
(Ex.  xxx  vii.  29). 

Special  Requirements  of  Priests  (Lev.  x.  8-1 1  ,  xxi. 
1-24).  —  Among  the  various  requirements  made  of  the 
priesthood  by  which  its  character  for  holiness  was  to  be 
maintained  and  emphasized  there  seems  to  be  but  one 
which  comes  within  the  scope  of  the  present  inquiry. 
A  priest  was  not  permitted  to  marry  a  licentious, 
profane,  or  divorced  woman.  The  high-priest's  choice 
of  a  wife  was  further  confined  to  a  virgin  of  his  own 
people.  These  are  the  sole  limitations  of  the  law 
touching  this  matter.  The  ordinary  priest,  accordingly, 
might,  if  he  chose,  marry  a  widow,  or  go  outside  the 
bounds  of  his  own  people  and  take  as  wife  the  daughter 
of  a  "  stranger  "  dwelling  among  the  Israelites. 

This  statute,  now,  could  not  have  been  made  in  the 
time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  for  it  does  not  reflect  its 
tendencies.      We   discover    already    in    the    Book     of 

'  See  Hamburger's  Re'dl-Encyc.  s.v.  "  Salbol."  *  iii.  m. 


2i6       The  Pentateuch  :    Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Ezekiel  a  toning  up  of  the  legislation  in  this  respect. 
The  ordinary  priest  is  there  subjected  to  the  rule  for 
the  high-priest,  in  that  he  is  prohibited  from  marrying 
a  widow,  except  the  widow  of  a  former  priest.  But 
among  the  exiles  who  have  returned  from  Babylon  we 
find  ourselves  in  an  atmosphere  surcharged  with  this 
stricter  spirit.  Severest  penalties  are  visited  not  alone 
on  priests  but  on  the  laity  for  intermarriage  with  any 
heathen  people.  And  it  is  noticeable  that  Ezra,  who 
makes  humble  confession  to  God  on  account  of  such 
transgressions  in  Israel,  most  significantly  has  the  Deu- 
teronomic,  and  not  the  Levitical,  form  of  the  legislation 
in  view  (Ezra  ix.  12  f.  ;  x.  18  ff.  ;  cf.  Deut.  vii.  3  ;  xxiii.  7). 
How  is  it  possible,  then,  that  such  a  law  as  this  of  the 
middle  books  could  have  originated  at  any  period  sub- 
sequent to  the  prophecy  of  Ezekiel }  How  much  less 
could  the  strenuousness  of  that  prophecy  in  the  matter 
before  us  have  marked  a  transition  in  the  direction  of 
the  relative  laxity  of  the  "  Priests'  Code  "  ! 

The  High-Priest  to  be  of  Eleaser  s  Line  (Num.  xxv. 
10-13). — The  effort  of  the  Wellhausen  criticism  to 
make  out  that  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  with  the 
high-priest  at  its  head,  was  a  novelty  of  the  exile  is 
one  of  the  least  plausible  of  its  many  wild  conjectures. 
The  history  furnishes  not  an  iota  of  valid  evidence 
for  it  to  rest  upon  The  story  of  Aaron  and  Miriam 
stands  or  falls  with  that  of  Moses  himself.  The  sec- 
tion from  Numbers  now  before  us  belongs  to  a  nar- 
rative of  events  occurring  near  the  close  of  the  exodus 
period.i  It  brings  the  history  of  the  priesthood  one 
step  further  downward  Eleazer  has  succeeded  Aaron  ; 
and  now  it  is  promised  that  Phinehas,  on  account 
of  his  sublime  act  of  moral  courage  and  zeal  for  God, 
shall  perpetuate  the  succession. 

iNum,  j.-xiv.  belongs  to  the  earlier  part,  xv.  ff.  to  the  later. 


Laws  Peculiar  to  the  "  Priests'  Code."  2 1 7 

The  designation  "  son  of  Aaron  "  as  a  title  for  tlie 
high-priest,  on  which  the  circle  of  critics  just  alluded 
to  lays  so  much  stress  as  being  a  peculiarity  of  the 
"Priests'  Code,"  is  found  already  in  this  very  code, 
in  the  process  of  passing  over  into  the  usage  of  the 
historical  books.  The  defection  of  Nadab  and  Abihu, 
who  were  also  "sons  of  Aaron,"  no  doubt  contributed 
to  hasten  the  change.  This  title,  in  itself  considered, 
had  ceased  to  mark  the  high  distinction  conveyed  by 
the  words  as  originally  used  ;  and  other  things,  like 
this  act  of  Phinehas,  are  employed  to  add  honor  to 
the  sacred  official  position.  Phinehas  succeeded  his 
father  Eleazer  (Judges  xx.  20),  and,  excepting  a  brief 
interruption  between  the  time  of  Eli  and  David,  the 
line,  as  far  as  we  have  any  knowledge  of  it,  was  con- 
tinued in  his  descendants 

It  cannot  be  shown  that  in  any  period  of  the  history, 
leaving  out  the  thoroughly  abnormal  one  of  the  judges, 
the  high-priest  ever  held  any  other  position  relative 
to  the  other  priests  and  the  common  people  than 
that  accorded  him  in  our  code.  The  same  desig- 
nation is  everywhere  applied  to  him,  namely,  "  the 
priest,"  that  we  find  given  to  the  chief  of  the  order 
in  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch.  Nowhere 
do  we  find  any  other  person  than  the  high-priest 
permitted  to  enter  the  holy  of  holies  for  the  perform- 
ance of  priestly  duties.  In  short,  the  representation 
that  there  are  four  stages  of  development  in  the 
history  of  the  Israelitish  priesthood  from  the  Jeho- 
vistic  period,  when  there  was  no  priest,  through  the 
Deuteronomic,  when  there  was  no  distinction  between 
priests  and  Levites,  to  Ezekiel's  day,  when  a  distinc- 
tive family  of  priests  arises,  and  to  the  "  Priests'  Code  " 
of  the  exile,  when  this  family,  falsely  tracing  its  lineage 


2 1 8        The  PentateucJi :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

back  to  Aaron  and  setting  a  high-priest  at  its  head, 
dominates  alike  the  whole  civil  and  religious  life  of 
Israel,  is  a  pure  invention,  and  at  every  step  opposed 
to  the  plainest  statements  of  the  history. 

"  The  post-exilian  period  of  the  hierocracy,"  says 
Delitzsch,  "  of  which  it  is  claimed  that  the  *  Priests' 
Code '  was  meant  to  furnish  the  legal  basis,  does  not 
exist.  The  high-priesthood  of  Eleazer's  line  with  its 
attendant  priests  stands  alongside  of  Ezra  and  Nehe- 
miah  just  as  little  distinguished  as  that  of  Ithamar 
alongside  of  Samuel.  The  relation  in  which  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah  stood  to  the  priesthood  and  the  priesthood 
to  them  positively  precludes  the  idea  that  either 
intended,  by  means  of  a  new  Torah,  to  make  the 
priesthood  a  ruling-force  in  the  new  state.  And,  in 
fact,  it  is  not  'hierocracy,'  but  'legalism,'  that  is  the 
right  word  to  characterize  the  impulse  which  Ezra 
the  scribe  gave  to  Judaism."  ^ 

Requirements  of  those  Eating  of  the  Sacrificial  Offer- 
ings (Lev.  xxii.  1-16;  Num.  xviii.  10  ff.). — As  a  part 
of  the  "  Priests*  Code,"  if  that  code  have  the  origin  and 
the  significance  claimed  for  it  by  many  critics,  the  law 
relating  to  the  disabilities  unfitting  a  priest  to  share  in 
the  sacrificial  meals  has  not  only  no  pertinence,  but  is 
antagonistic  to  its  spirit  and  calculated  to  defeat  the 
purpose  which  is  supposed  to  have  prompted  it.  It  is 
not  a  statute  that  brings  honor  and  privilege  to  the 
"sons  of  Aaron,"  but  one  that  curtails  his  privileges 
and  puts  him  in  humbling  contrast  with  his  high  office. 
Whether  he  eats  or  drinks,  or  whatever  he  does,  he  is 
not  to  forget  that  he  is  made  a  priest  after  the  law  of  a 
carnal  commandment"  (Heb.  vii.  16),  that  he  has 
"  infirmities  "  and  needs  to  offer  up  sacrifices  "  first  for 
his  own  sins  "  {ibid.  vs.  27,  28). 

^Zeitschriftfiir  Kirchlkhe  Wisscnscha/i,€tc.  1880,  p.  234. 


Laws  Peculiar  to  tJie  "Priests'  Codey  219 

This  is  not  the  representation  we  should  look  for  in 
a  scheme  concocted  for  their  own  benefit  by  a  coterie 
of  aspiring  men  of  Ezra's  day.  It  is,  however,  con- 
spicuously that  of  the  Levitical  code  in  every  part.  It 
is  equally  that  of  the  earliest  and  latest  history.  It  is 
Moses  who  acts  as  mediator  and  voices  the  divine 
authority  during  the  exodus  period.  Aaron  is  through- 
out a  secondary  figure.  His  very  first  attempt  at 
leadership  in  his  brother's  absence  is  an  acknowledged 
blunder  and  proves  a  wellnigh  fatal  one  (Ex.  xxxii.). 
It  is  Moses  who  ultimately  transfers  to  the  elder 
brother  his  delegated  office  :  an  office  whose  sanctity  in 
itself,  as  over  against  the  prerogatives  of  any  person, 
was  signally  indicated  in  the  swift  punishment  of 
irreverence  on  the  part  of  Aaron's  eldest  sons,  who 
sought  to  prostitute  it  to  their  selfish  ends.  And  when, 
in  later  days,  the  father  himself,  in  proud  reliance  on 
his  sacerdotal  preeminence,  ventures  with  Miriam  to 
antagonize  and  call  in  question  Moses'  authority 
(Num.  xii.  2),  the  rebuke  he  merits  and  receives  is 
of  one  piece  with  that  administered  to  Aaron's  recreant 
descendants  by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  in  the  later  day 
(Neh.  xiii.  28,  29). 

Special  Prerogatives  of  Priests  (Num.  vi.  22-27  >  ^• 
i-io).  —  Among  the  peculiar  prerogatives  of  Aaron's 
sons,  that  of  the  priestly  benediction  and  that  of 
carrying  the  silver  signal-trumpets  are  pertinent  to  our 
present  investigations.  The  code  before  us,  in  har- 
mony with  other  phases  of  the  law  and  with  the 
history,  makes  the  proper  benediction  a  priestly  act. 
Kayser,^  however,  with  some  others,  has  claimed  that 
in  Deuteronomy  the  Lcvitc  also  is  invested  with  this 
function  (Dcut.  x.  8).     In  his  general  statement  he  is 

•  Das  Vorexilische  Buck,  etc.  p.  131. 


220       The  Pentateucli :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

correct,  but  is  wholly  mistaken  in  his  application  of  it. 
The  Levites  are  not  technically  spoken  of  in  Deuter- 
onomy, in  distinction  from  priests,  but  simply  as  con- 
stituting one  of  the  tribes  of  Israel  and  so  including 
priests  as  well  as  ministers  of  a  lower  grade.  And  as 
it  regards  the  latter  function  it  must  not  be  overlooked 
that  the  original  purpose  of  the  silver  trumpets  pre- 
supposes the  Mosaic  age.  The  principal  use  assigned 
them  is  to  summon  the  assemblies  that  should  gather 
at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  and  to  give  the  signal  for 
the  "journeying  of  the  camps."  If  it  be  an  example 
of  "legal  fiction,"  we  can  see  no  occasion  to  justify  its 
employment  in  the  present  instance.  On  the  contrary, 
the  history  of  the  exilian  period  (Ezra  iii.  lo;  Neh.  xii. 
35)  and,  in  fact,  of  the  usage  generally,  after  the 
buildmg  of  Solomon's  temple,  shows  no  such  uniformity 
as  it  respects  the  employment  of  horns  in  religious 
services  as  to  lead  to  the  supposition  that  the  present 
law  is  an  invention,  and  crowns  a  development  that 
culminated  in  the  fifth  century  b.c. 

The  Tabernacle  (Ex.  xxv.-xxviii,  19.  Cf.  xxxvi.- 
xxxviii.).  — It  can  scarcely  be  doubted  by  a  candid  mind 
that  the  story  of  the  Jewish  tabernacle  has  an  historical 
basis,  or  that  for  its  conception  we  must  look  to  the 
Mosaic  period.  To  make  it  merely  an  ideal  picture  of 
the  Babylonian  exiles,  a  reflection  of  Solomon's  temple 
projected  backward  by  a  vivid  fancy  upon  the  distant 
canvas  of  Hebrew  mythology,  is  to  be  as  untrue  to  the 
records  that  furnish  us  with  our  only  account  of  the 
structure  as  to  any  normal  function  of  the  imagina- 
tion. The  critic,  indeed,  in  this  way  gets  a  theory  of 
the  tabernacle  that  suits  to  some  degree  his  theory  of 
development  in  the  history ;  but  it  is  at  a  fatal  cost. 
How  then,  on  any  proper  principles  of  historical  devel- 
opment, is  the  temple  itself  to  be  accounted  for  ? 


Laws  Peculiar  to  the  ''Priests   Code.''  22 T 

Perhaps,  however,  so  inopportune  a  query  will  be 
regarded  as  also  an  impertinence.  Given  the  theory 
that  you  have  an  elephant  and  a  tortoise  for  the  earth 
to  rest  its  crushing  weight  upon,  what  difference  can  it 
make  whether  it  be  elephant  or  tortoise  that  is  left 
dangling  in  the  abyss  ? 

The  reality  of  the  Mosaic  tabernacle  and  its  principal 
furniture  is  vouched  for  not  alone  by  the  Elohistic 
"  Priests'  Code  "  with  laws  relating  to  it  that  breathe 
everywhere  the  Mosaic  spirit  (Lev.  xvii.),  but  also  by 
each  of  the  other  alleged  leading  documents  of  the 
Pentateuch  (Ex.  xxxiii.  7-1 1  ;  Num.  x.  35  f . ;  xi.  16  f . ; 
Deut.  x.  1-5  ;  xxxi.  14  f.).  This  testimony  the  earliest 
history  circumstantially  confirms.  Jehovah  is  repre- 
sented, for  example,  by  the  prophet  Nathan  as  not 
having  dwelt  in  a  house  from  the  day  that  he  brought 
the  children  of  Israel  out  of  Egypt,  but  in  a  tent  and 
in  a  tabernacle  (2  Sam.  vii.  6  f.).  David,  accordingly, 
when  he  prepares  on  Mount  Zion  a  place  for  the  ark 
erects  a  tent  for  its  reception.  Without  an  accepted 
Mosaic  precedent  for  such  an  act,  it  would  have  been, 
especially  in  view  of  the  recent  history  of  the  ark,  in 
the  highest  degree  unnatural,  not  to  say  incomprehen- 
sible or  impossible. 

When  this  conclusion,  however,  has  been  reached  we 
are  not  yet  clear  of  difficulties.  Not  that,  with  our 
present  knowledge  of  Egypt  and  the  presumed  grade 
of  civilization  attained  by  Israel,  we  are  troubled  with 
questions  concerning  the  costly  materials  employed  in 
the  structure  of  the  tabernacle,  the  skilled  labor 
demanded,  or  the  brevity  of  the  time  apparently 
allotted  to  the  rearing  of  so  complex  and  costly  a 
sanctuary.  We  have  only  to  think  of  the  pyramids  ; 
and,   further,    that    this   very   people   was   fresh   from 


222       TJic  PcntatciicJi. :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

labors  on  the  treasure-houses  of  Pharaoh.  Neither 
does  the  matter  of  transportation  present  any  greater 
perplexities.  With  no  necessity  of  haste  and  an  army 
of  laborers  at  command,  what  obstacle  could  a  country 
otherwise  impassable  to  loaded  vehicles  have  offered  to 
the  march  of  Israel  as  historically  described  ?  If  a 
greater  carrying-power  is  required  of  the  Levitical 
family  of  Merari  than  of  that  of  Kohath  or  Gershom, 
it  cannot  be  denied  that  it  is  also  found  to  be  more 
numerous  by  nearly  a  third  (Num.  iv.  34-49)  and  that 
special  facilities  are  documentarily  conceded  to  it  for 
its  service. 

To  hold  with  Riehm,  following  Kamphausen,^  that 
thirty-two  hundred  able-bodied  men  between  the  ages 
of  thirty  and  fifty  years,  with  at  least  four  wagons  and 
four  yoke  of  oxen  at  their  disposal  (Num.  vii.  8),  were 
insufficient  to  bear  such  parts  of  the  tabernacle  as  are 
assigned  to  them  in  the  records  is  to  betray  an  excess 
of  captiousness.^ 

But  an  objection  of  a  more  serious  nature  is  urged. 
The  Pentateuch  recognizes,  it  is  said,  a  twofold  taber 
nacle.  The  tabernacle  of  the  "  Priests'  Code  "  is  one 
affair;  that  of  the  earlier  documents  quite  another. 
The  first  tabernacle  is  properly  no  tabernacle  at  all  in 
a  technical  sense.  It  is  a  simple  tent,  without  parapher- 
nalia of  any  sort.  The  position  assigned  it,  contrary 
to  that  of  the  "  Priests*  Code,"  is  outside  the  camp  and 
at  a  distance  from  it  (Ex.  xxxiii.  7-1 1).  It  alone  is 
honored  by  the  presence  of  the  cloudy  pillar,  and  among 

'  See  art.  "  .Stiftshiitte  "  in  Riehm's  Handworterbuch.  It  would  appear  from  Num. 
iv.  32  that  the  four  wagons  named  were  not  the  sole  dependence  for  purposes  of  transpor- 
tation. 

^  The  inconsistency  of  much  of  our  modern  criticism  is  exhibited  in  no  way  more  fre- 
quently perhaps,  or  more  characteristically,  than  in  this,  that  from  making  literary  prodi- 
gies of  our  biblical  writers  and  editors,  it  proceeds,  in  the  ne.\t  breath,  to  make  of  them 
bunglers  of  the  first  rank. 


Laws  Peculiar  to  tJic  ^^  Priests   Code^  223 

^  tiier  historical  events  connected  only  with  it  was  that 
of  the  election  of  the  seventy  elders  and  their  spiritual 
enduement  (Ex.  xiii.  21  ;  Num.  x.  33;  xii.  5;  xiv.  14). 

What,  now,  is  to  be  said  of  this  hypothesis  and 
the  historical  statements  adduced  in  its  behalf  1  The 
apparent  discrepancies  in  the  documents  Wcllhausen 
and  his  supporters  have  known  how  to  utilize  to  the 
utmost  in  favor  of  a  theory  that  separates  them  by  many 
centuries  of  development.  He  puts  them  so  far  apart, 
indeed,  that  only  a  man  as  sagacious  as  the  final 
redactor  of  the  Pentateuch  could  ever  have  seen  any 
connection  between  them,  or  one  with  his  charac- 
teristic temerity  have  thought  to  harmonize  them  as 
a  common  product  of  the  Mosaic  period.^  But  all 
critics,  fortunately,  have  not  to  struggle  with  so  credu- 
lous an  incredulity  as  that  of  Julius  Wellhausen. 

A  more  modest  theory  to  explain  the  alleged  phe- 
nomena of  the  documents  is  that  of  Riehm^  and  others. 
The  tabernacle  of  the  "  Priests'  Code  "  is  no  invention 
of  the  fifth  century  before  Christ,  it  is  said ;  it  is  no 
invention  at  all.  It  is  the  reflection  of  the  Davidic 
tabernacle  backward  into  the  Mosaic  age.  It  is  the 
tabernacle  as  the  times  of  David  actually  knew  it  that 
the  pen  of  the  Elohist  has  sketched  for  us.  Wholly 
diverse  from  that  described  in  the  supposed  earlier 
records  it  is  not,  but  a  natural  outgrowth  of  it  and 
holding  the  same  relation  to  it  that  the  royal  period  of 
Israel  held  to  that  of  the  exodus.  Admitting  the 
hypothesis  of  the  documents,  this  effort  of  Richm  to 
harmonize  them  is  certainly  a  marked  improvement  on 
that  of  Wcllhausen. 

But  would  not  a  still  easier  method  of  explaining  the 

*  See  Wellhausen,  Geschichte,  i.  p.  40  (T.     Cf.  W.  Robertson  Smith's  Old  Testamtnt 
in  ike  "jfewish  Church,  pp.  318,  432. 

*  Ibid.  p.  1567. 


224       TJie  PentateucJi :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

history  and  laws  in  harmony  with  themselves  be,  to 
discard  entirely  the  hypothesis  of  separate  documents 
in  the  narrative  and  law  of  tlie  tabernacle  ?  The 
hypothesis  certainly  needs  the  support  of  the  alleged 
discrepancies  much  more  than  the  alleged  discrepancies 
need  that  of  different  documents. 

If,  in  short,  it  be  a  matter  of  choosing  between  rival 
theories  to  explain  the  phenomena,  the  traditional  one 
seems  to  us  every  way  to  be  preferred.  That  the 
Elohist  and  Jehovist  and  even  the  Deuteronomist  and 
Redactor  are  all  combined  in  one  person  in  this  matter 
it  would  be  far  easier  to  believe  than  that  any  two  of 
them  are  so  much  at  loggerheads  as  to  require  theories 
of  the  nature  of  those  proposed  to  reconcile  them. 

Looking  at  the  matter,  then,  as  it  is  historically  pre- 
sented to  us,  we  discover  that  after  Moses  received  the 
order  to  build  the  tabernacle  the  dreadful  defection  of 
the  people,  in  the  matter  of  the  golden  calf,  took  place. 
This  naturally  interrupted  the  execution  of  the  plan. 
In  the  meantime  a  provisional  tent  was  used,  not 
improperly  called  by  the  name  subsequently  given  to 
the  tabernacle,  "  tent  of  meeting "  ;  since  it,  too, 
actually  served  as  the  meeting-place  of  the  congrega- 
tion. It  is  pitched  at  a  short  remove  from  the  encamp- 
ment, in  order,  as  the  historian  is  careful  to  inform  us, 
to  manifest  the  divine  displeasure  at  Israel's  recent  sin 
(Ex.  xxxiii.  7).  It  is  not  in  the  midst  of  the  camp 
(Num.  xi.  24,  26,  30;  xii.  4,  5)  ;  but  just  as  little  is  it 
wholly  apart  from  it.  It  is  nowhere  said,  as  has  been 
affirmed,  that,  on  the  march,  this  primitive  tabernacle 
was  born  aloft  before  the  host.  This  is  stated  only 
concerning  the  ark.  It  is  sometimes  called  the  taber- 
nacle, indeed,  but  only  by  a  well-known  usage  of  the 
definite  article  in  Hebrew  whereby  a  certain  definite 


Laws  Peculiar  to  tJic  ^'■Priests   Code.^'  225 

conception  of  an  object  by  the  writer  and  his  readers 
is  indicated. 

This  very  tent,  moreover,  had  probably  been  known 
before  as  the  tent  of  Moses.  Here  God  had  made 
special  communications  with  his  servant  (Ex.  xviii. 
13-16).  Joshua,  as  temporary  leader  in  Moses*  absence, 
occupies  it  (Ex.  xxxiii.  11).  There  is  no  impropriety  in 
his  doing  so  previous  to  the  establishment  of  the 
Levitical  system.  For  the  same  reason  God  without 
the  mediation  of  sacrifice  makes  revelations  of  himself 
here  (Ex.  xxxiii.  7,  9,  11  ;  cf.  xiii.  21).  It  is  before 
their  lee;al  institution  and  the  introduction  of  the  ritual. 
Now,  when  so  much  has  been  admitted,  all  the  princi- 
pal difficulties  involved  in  the  narrative  have  disap- 
peared. ^  To  stigmatize  such  explanations,  moreover, 
as  "  harmonistic "  is  not  to  overthrow  them.  The 
problem  is  one  of  harmonizing  apparently  conflicting 
statements  whatever  theory  is  adopted.  If,  in  the  well- 
known  case  that  was  brought  before  Solomon  for  deci- 
sion (i  Kings  iii.  16-28)  the  living  child  that  was  in 
dispute  had  been  divided  by  the  sword,  the  conflict 
would,  indeed,  have  been  finally  adjusted:  but  only 
by  the  irremediable  loss  of  the  one  precious  thing  at 
stake.  So  here  the  knife  is  one  way  of  forever  settling 
the  question :  but  it  should  be  the  very  last  to  be 
resorted  to. 

The  Furniture  of  the  Tabernacle.  —  Of  the  articles 
of  furniture  found  in  the  tabernacle,  the  ark  was 
the  only  one  ever  admitted  to  the  holy  of  holies 
(Ex.  XXV.  10-22).       Its  correspondence  in  conception  to 

iCf.  Ranke,  Untersuchung  uber  den  Pentateuch,  ii.6i,68;  Kurtz,  History  of  the 
Old  Covenant,  iii.  171 ;  Green,  ^roses  and  the  Prophets,  p.  57  f.  It  would  not  serve  in 
any  degree  to  disprove  the  origin  of  the  legitimate  and  only  tabernacle  in  the  Mosaic 
period  if  it  could  be  shown,  as  sonic  claim,  that  the  work  upon  it  was  not  completed  in  all 
its  details  until  after  its  formal  dedication  (cf.  Num.  xvi.  38  f.;  xxxi.  52  ff.).  The  contrary 
might,  indeed,  have  been  most  confidently  expected. 


226       The  Pentateuch:   Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

similar  objects  of  veneration  among  contemporaneous 
peoples  has  already  been  remarked.  And,  if  its 
hereditary  name,  pointing  back  to  the  giving  of 
the  law  on  Sinai,  were  not  a  sufficient  link  of  con- 
nection with  the  records  of  the  Jehovist,  there  is 
no  lack  of  evidence  to  vindicate  its  claim  to  be 
historic  and  Mosaic.  It  appears  in  Deuteronomy 
(x.  3),  repeatedly  in  Joshua  (iii.,  vi.,  xviii.),  in  Judges 
(xx.  26  ff.),  in  Samuel  (2  Sam.  xv.  25),  and  Kings 
(i  Kings  viii.),  until,  finally,  it  is  lodged  within  the 
sacred  precincts  of  the  temple  of  Solomon,  Of  its 
fortunes  subsequent  to  the  time  of  Isaiah  (2  Chron. 
xxxiii.  7 ;  xxxv.  3),  we  have  no  account.  The  temple 
or  Zerubbabel  was  clearly  without  it ;  and  hence 
by  no  fiction  of  Ezra  could  it  have  been  smuggled 
into  the  history  of  the  earlier  times. 

TJie  Altar  of  Incense  had  its  place  "  before  the  vail  " 
(Ex.  XXX.  1-2 1,  34-38),  but  so  near  to  the  holy  of 
holies  as  to  share  somewhat  in  its  sacredness  (i  Kings, 
vi.  22  ;  cf.  Heb.  ix.  4).  The  narrative  of  its  form  and 
function,  being  exceptionally  found  in  a  section  by 
itself,  has  given  rise  to  the  theory  that  it  is  a  still  later 
accretion  of  the  exilian  "  Priests'  Code."  On  so  slight 
a  foundation  many  a  pretentious  structure  of  the 
criticism  is  reared.  But  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
the  temple  of  Solomon  had  an  altar  of  incense 
(i  Kings,  vi.  20  ;  vii.  48 ;  ix.  25).  Why  then  should 
a  code  originating  after  that  period  be  of  the  form 
of  ours,  bringing  in  the  regulations  for  this  altar  as 
a  kind  of  appendix  or  afterthought  .■' 

It  is  difficult,  it  is  true,  to  explain  the  peculiar 
arrangement  of  sections  on  the  supposition  that  the 
law  arose  in  the  exodus  period  ;  but  the  difficulty  is 
greatly  enhanced  if  the  interior  of    Solomon's  temple 


Laws  Peculiar  to  the  ^^ Priests'  CodeT  227 

furnished  the  norm  and  guide.  Moreover,  it  is  a 
significant  fact  that  the  altar  of  incense  in  Solomon's 
temple  was  made  of  cedar  ;  that  of  the  "  Priests'  Code  " 
is  constructed  of  acacia  {spina  j^gyptiaca).  If  now,  the 
wise  and  forethoughtful  legislator  of  the  later  day  is 
looking  through  an  inverted  telescope  at  Solomon's 
temple  in  order  to  form  his  picture  of  the  exodus 
period,  why  has  he  overlooked  this  circumstance  ? 
That  he  has  an  eye  for  details  we  have  abundant  proof. 
The  altar  of  incense  in  the  second  temple,  so  far  as  we 
can  judge,  is  formed  on  the  model  of  the  "  Priests' 
Code." 

And  what  is  true  of  the  altar  of  incense  is  true  also 
of  the  principal  remaining  articles  of  the  original 
tabernacle.  They  are  each  and  all  represented  as 
differing,  to  some  extent,  from  those  of  the  first 
temple,  while  agreeing  with  those  restored  and  used 
in  the  second. 

The  table  of  shew-bread  as  described  in  the  "  Priests' 
Code"  was  an  exceedingly  simple  structure  of  acacia 
wood  (Ex.  XXV.  23-30  ;  Lev.  xxiv.  5-9).  There  is  every 
reason  to  believe  that  the  one  found  in  Zerubbabel's 
temple  followed  its  specifications  (i  Mace.  i.  22  ;  iv.  49). 
We  read  nowhere  in  the  earlier  or  later  history  that 
more  than  one  table  was  used  for  this  purpose  at  one 
and  the  same  time.  But  in  Solomon's  day,  we  are  told 
that  the  number  rose  to  ten,  five  being  placed  on  the 
right  and  five  on  the  left  of  the  entrance  into  the  holy 
of  holies  (2  Chron.  iv.  8,  19;  cf.  i  Chron.  xxviii.  16). 

In  like  manner  and  to  a  like  extent  the  number 
of  candlesticks  was  multiplied  in  Solomon's  temple 
(i  Kings  vii.  49;  2  Chron.  iv.  7)  ;  and  they  seem  to 
have  remained  at  that  number  until  carried  away  by 
the  Babylonian  conquerors   (Jer.   lii.    19).     The  exiles, 


228        The  PentateiicJi :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

however,  on  their  return  from  Babylon  made  provision 
but  for  one  (i  Mace.  i.  22),  in  harmony  with  the  alleged 
original  code  (Ex.  xxvii.  20,  21  ;  Lev.  xxiv.  1-4;  Num. 
viii.  1-4). 

The  altar  of  burnt-offering  appears  to  have  undergone 
similar  changes  in  its  history.  That  of  the  tabernacle, 
in  material,  size,  and  the  provision  made  for  approaching 
it  (Ex.  xxvii.  I  ff. ;  xxxviii.  i  ff.),  differed  considerably 
from  the  one  used  in  the  royal  period  (i  Kings  viii.  64 ; 
2  Chron.  iv.  i  ;  vii.  7).  Of  the  altar  of  burnt-offering 
in  Zerubbabel's  temple  we  find  no  special  description. 
But  we  may  safely  infer  from  various  hints  that  it 
also  went  back  for  its  model  to  the  simplicity  of  the 
supposed  original  one  (i  Mace.  iv.  47)  and  not  to  the 
precedent  of  Solomon.  Wellhausen  directly  asserts 
that  this  was  the  case.^ 

Now  in  each  of  these  instances,  and  the  argument  is 
the  stronger  from  the  fact  that  there  are  four  of  them, 
the  conclusion  to  be  drawn  is  inevitable.  The  practice 
of  the  exiles  from  Babylon  conforms  to  the  regula- 
tions of  the  "  Priests'  Code  "  and  not  to  the  usage  of 
the  first  temple.  We  may  suppose,  then,  either  that 
the  "  Priests'  Code  "  arose  at  this  period  or  we  may 
suppose  that  it  was  followed  because  it  was  univer- 
sally regarded  by  the  Jews  as  Mosaic  and  authoritative. 
We  cannot  suppose  that,  having  its  origin  at  this  late 
day,  it  was  in  any  sense  a  projection  of  the  first  temple 
backward  into  the  Mosaic  period.  Such  an  hypothesis 
must  be  regarded  as,  in  the  circumstances,  impossible. 

This  being  so,  then  I  submit  that  we  are  shut  up  to 
the  conclusion  that  this  code  did  not  originate  with 
Ezra  or  any  contemporary  of  his,  but  was  adopted  in 
preference  to  the  usages  of  the  first  temple  because  it 

1  Geschickie,  i.  p.  30  and  note. 


Laws  Peculiar  to  tJie  ^^  Priests   Code."  229 

was  looked  upon  as  the  primitive  and  obligatory  form 
of  the  legislation.  For  we  can  easily  understand  how 
the  priests  of  the  later  day  should  wish  to  sanction  and 
follow  national  religious  institutions  in  their  original 
form.  But  how  <7?^«j-?-Mosaic  legislators  of  these  times 
or  of  any  other  period  subsequent  to  Solomon  should 
wish,  or  dare,  to  counterwork  ordinances  like  those  of  the 
first  temple  if  these  were  up  to  that  time  the  only  ones 
in  existence  is  incomprehensible.  What  could  be  more 
completely  at  variance  with  the  statement  that  there 
were  many  priests,  Levites  and  chief  of  the  fathers, 
old  men,  who  had  seen  the  glory  of  the  first  house  and 
"wept  with  a  loud  voice  "  at  the  relative  meanness  of 
the  second  (Ezra  iii.  12,  13)  }  It  is  tenfold  more  likely, 
in  short,  that  the  so-called  "  Priests'  Code  "  is  actually 
antique  and  Mosaic,  than  that,  while  offering  these 
sharp  contrasts  to  the  practice  of  the  golden  and  proto- 
typal period  of  Hebrew  history,  it  only  pretends  to 
be  so. 

The  Burnt-Ojfering  (Lev.  i.  1-17  ;  vi.  1-6;  Num. 
xxviii.  1-15). — All  of  the  laws  of  the  Book  of  Leviticus 
and  of  the  first  ten  chapters  of  Numbers  are  repre- 
sented as  having  been  given  during  the  fifty  years 
intervening  between  the  setting  up  of  the  tabernacle 
and  the  departure  from  Sinai  (with  Ex.  xl.  17  cf.  Num. 
X.  11).  But  one  of  the  first  things  we  notice  in  the 
ritual  of  the  burnt-offering  is  that  this  form  of  offering 
is  presupposed  as  something  already  existing  :  "  If  any 
man  of  you  bring"  (that  is,  according  to  custom). 
This  is  in  harmony  with  what  we  learn  of  the  earliest 
forms  of  sacrifice  among  the  patriarchs.  The  burnt- 
offering  and  peace-offering,  as  we  have  already  shown, 
were  their  type  (Gen.  viii.  20 ;  xxii.  7 ;  xxxi.  54 ;  xlvi. 
I  ;  Job  i.  5  ;  xlii.  8). 


230        TJie  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  mid  Structure. 

We  fail  to  find  the  marked  transition,  said  to 
exist  between  the  Jehovist  and  Elohist  documents  in 
passing  from  one  to  the  other.  Nor  do  we  discover 
anything  in  the  whole  ritual  of  the  burnt-offering  as  it 
appears  in  Leviticus  and  Numbers,  the  presentation, 
the  imposition  of  hands,  the  slaughter,  the  disposition 
of  the  blood,  the  consumption  of  the  victim,  that  unfits 
it  for  the  exodus  period.  That  it  extends  beyond  the 
simple  rites  of  an  Abel  or  an  Abraham  should  not 
surprise  us.  It  is  intended  for  a  people  new-born 
from  Egypt.  Earlier  custom,  however,  as  we  have  said, 
undoubtedly  forms  the  basis  of  the  system  and  it  has 
precisely  the  same  origin  and  the  same  authority  as 
the  so-called  primitive  (Sinaitic)  laws  of  the  Pentateuch 
(Ex.  XX.  23-26;  xxiii.  18  f.  ;  xxxiv.  iv.  25). 

Meal  and  Drink  Ojferings  (Lev.  ii.  1-6,  7-1 1  ; 
X.  12,  13;  Num.  XV.  1-12;  cf.  Num.  xxviii.).  —  Offering 
to  God  some  portion  of  the  products  of  the  earth  by 
which  the  offerer  is  sustained  has  a  basis  in  nature 
and  not  simply  in  ecclesiasticism.  David  pointed  it 
out  when  he  said  :  "  All  things  come  of  thee  and  of 
thine  own  have  we  given  thee"   (i   Chron.  xxix.    14). 

The  drink-offering  is  never  found  —  as  was  common 
in  heathen  religions — by  itself,  in  the  Mosaic  ritual, 
but  invariably  in  connection  with  the  meal-offering.  It 
is  worthy  of  notice  also  that  no  part  of  the  wine  used 
in  this  offering  formed  any  part  of  the  priests'  perqui- 
sites (Lev.  X.  9;  cf.  Ecclus.  1.  15). 

The  fact  that  the  vessels  used  for  making  the  drink- 
offering  are  mentioned  as  a  part  of  the  furniture  of  the 
table  of  shew-bread  is  no  evidence  of  a  more  ancient 
practice,  in  accordance  with  which  wine  as  well  as 
bread  was  exhibited  upon  it.  They  are  mentioned 
when  and  as  they  are  simply  because  it  was  found  most 


Laws  Peculiar  to  the  "  Priests'  Code^  23 1 

convenient  so  to  enumerate  them.  They  are  in  pre- 
cisely the  same  category,  in  this  respect,  as  the  pots  in 
which  the  sacred  frankincense  ^vas  kept  (Ex.  xxv.  29). 

It  can  be  regarded,  moreover,  as  no  intentional  color- 
ing of  the  record,  but  an  incidental  circumstance  of 
great  significance,  that  the  meal  and  drink  offerings  as 
accompaniments  of  other  more  important  sacrifices  are 
only  prospectively  prescribed  in  the  "  Priests'  Code." 
They  are  represented  as  designed  for  a  future  period, 
that  which  should  follow  the  conquest  of  Palestine. 
"Speak  unto  the  children  "  is  the  form  with  which  the 
statute  is  introduced,  "and  say  unto  them.  When  ye 
have  come  into  the  land  of  your  habitations  which  I 
am  giving  unto  you,"  etc.   (Num.  xv.  2). 

Peace-Offerings  (Lev.  iii.  i-i/jvii.  11 -21,  28-34  ;xix. 
5-8 ;  xxii.  29,  30).  — The  peace  (or  thank)  offering,  there 
can  be  no  doubt,  was  common  before  the  time  of  Moses 
(Gen.  xxxi.  54 ;  xlvi.  i  ;  Ex.  x.  25  ;  xxxii.  6),  and  not 
alone  among  the  Hebrews  but  other  neighboring 
peoples.  Its  most  essential  characteristic,  the  accom- 
panying feast  participated  in  symbolically  by  God  and 
really  by  the  offerer  and  his  friends  was  merely  the 
recognition  of  a  mutual  covenant,  in  a  form  universally 
practised  in  the  Orient.  The  ritual  of  this  class  of 
sacrifices  as  found  in  the  "  Priests'  Code  "  presents  no 
single  feature  that  is  out  of  harmony  with  its  alleged 
origin  in  the  Mosaic  period.  The  two  names  given  to 
it  indicate  simply  two  different  points  of  view  :  the  one 
referring  more  particularly  to  the  outward  rite  ;  ^  the 
other,2  to  the  underlying  moral  significance  of  it.  If 
the  theory  of  a  late  date  for  the  "  Priests'  Code  "  were 
correct,  we  might  have  expected  to  find  the  latter  term 
only  in  the  youngest  documents,  which  is  not  the  case 
(Ex.  XX.  24 ;  xxiv.  5). 

» Zebhach.  *  Sheltm. 


232        The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  a7id  Structure. 

The  Sin-Ojfering  (Lev,  iv. ;  v.  13  ;  vi.  17;  Num.  xv. 
22-28). —  It  is  significant  that  in  the  order  of  narration 
the  sin-offering  follows  those  above  mentioned,  although 
as  a  matter  of  ritual  it  ordinarily  preceded  them  when 
all  were  presented  at  the  same  time.  The  others  had 
been  in  use  before  the  days  of  Moses.  This,  at  least 
in  its  present  form,  had  not.  The  immediate  object  of 
the  sin-offering  was  expiation,  as  that  of  the  trespass- 
offering  was  satisfaction  or  restitution. 

In  saying,  now,  that  technically  speaking  there  are 
no  signs  of  the  existence  of  sin-offerings  before  the 
time  of  Moses,  that  is,  that  they  had  no  existence, 
except  as  all  bloody  offerings  were  understood  to  be  of 
the  nature  of  an  atoning  sacrifice,  we  do  not,  by  any 
means,  unfavorably  prejudice  the  position  that  they 
originated  with  him.  For  there  is  nothing  in  this  form 
of  sacrifice,  per  se,  to  make  it  an  anachronism  in  his 
time,  while  the  ritual  itself,  in  its  outward  form,  is 
indubitably  impressed  with  marks  of  the  exodus  period. 
The  bullock,  for  example,  that  is  to  be  offered  up,  is  to 
be  brought  to  the  "  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  con- 
gregation before  the  Lord  "  (Lev.  iv.  4 ;  cf.  vs.  5,  7,  15, 
16,  18).  After  its  slaughter  and  the  prescribed  sprink- 
ling and  pouring  of  its  blood  about  the  sanctuary, 
the  carcass  is  to  be  carried  "without  the  camp"  and 
burned  (Lev.  iv.  12,  21). 

These  are  unintentional  corroborations  of  the  Mosaic 
origin  of  the  code  or  they  are  an  intentional  shaping 
and  coloring  of    it   for   purposes  of  deception. 

That  within  the  Levitical  law  of  the  sin-offering 
itself  there  are  expressions  suggestive  of  development, 
as  some  have  intimated  (v.  1-6),  Delitzsch  denies.^ 
And  that  from  the  beginning  of  the  eighth  century  B.C. 

1  S.V.  "  Siindopfer  "  in  Riehm's  HandwQrterbuch. 


Laws  Peculiar  to  the  ^'Priests'  Code^  233 

the  post-Mosaic  history  is  without  an  adequate  recogni- 
tion of  its  existence  I  have  elsewhere  shown  to  be  an 
error.^ 

The  Trespass-0ffe7'ing  (Lev.  v.  14-26;  vii.  i-io ; 
Num.  V.  5-10).  —  Besides  the  differences  just  noted  as 
existing  between  the  sin  and  the  trespass  offering, 
there  were  also  others.  In  the  case  of  the  latter,  the 
victim  must  be  either  a  ram  or  a  sheep  ;  in  the  former, 
it  depended  on  the  rank  and  ability  of  the  offerer  what 
it  should  be.  In  the  trespass-offering  there  was  a  defi- 
nite restitution  required  for  injuries  done  ;  in  the  other, 
the  sacrifice  alone  sufficed.  The  trespass-offering  was 
always  of  a  private  and  individual  character,  the  sin- 
offering  might  be  for  a  community  or  the  whole  people. 
In  the  case  of  the  trespass-offering,  the  blood  of  the 
victim  was  sprinkled  only  on  the  sides  of  the  altar  ;  in 
the  other,  there  was  a  variety  of  solemn  ceremonies 
prescribed  for  it.  And  it  may  be  said,  in  general,  that, 
as  might  have  been  expected,  the  ritual  of  the  sin- 
offering  is  of  a  much  more  serious  and  rigid  character 
than  the  other.  That  among  Mosaic  institutions 
room  should  be  found  for  distinctions  as  fine  and  as 
detailed  as  these  cannot  be  accounted  strange  when  in 
the  original  Sinaitic  code  ritualistic  and  other  similar 
discriminations  scarcely  less  sharp  are  made  (Ex.  xx. 
22,  23  ;  xxi.  1-6  et passim). 

The  assertion,  now,  that  the  trespass-offering  is  but 
a  subordinate  development  out  of  the  sin-offering, 
from  which  it  was  differentiated  by  the  finical  scribes 
of  the  later  day,  has  no  historical  evidence  in  its  sup- 
port. If  there  were  development  in  the  premises,  it 
might  have  been  expected  in  just  the  contrary  direc- 
tion, the  stricter  form  following  the  more  lax.     Thir 

'  See  p.  99  r. 


234        T^^^  Pentateuch:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

order  alone,  moreover,  would  be  in  harmony  with  the 
general  position  of  the  critics  who  offer  the  hypothesis. 
That  the  terminology  of  the  Pentateuch  does  not 
always  indicate  clear  distinctions  is  true.^  But  such 
instances  are  exceedingly  rare  and  exceptional.  In- 
deed, omitting  a  single  allusion  in  2  Kings  xii.  17  — 
which,  however,  is  disputed  —  and  some  notices  in 
Ezekiel  (xl.  39 ;  xlii.  1 3  ;  xliv.  29 ;  xlvi.  20),  there  is  not 
a  single  reference  to  the  trespass-offering  outside  the 
Pentateuch  before  the  days  of  Ezra.  The  only  histori- 
cal observance  of  it  is  the  one  he  orders  in  the  case  of 
those  who  had  married  foreign  wives. 

The  very  nature  of  the  offering  furnishes  just  and 
sufficient  ground  for  this.  It  is,  as  before  remarked,  of 
a  purely  private  and  individual  character.  For  this 
reason,  doubtless,  it  is  not  mentioned  in  connection 
with  burnt  and  sin  offerings  in  the  well-known  passage 
of  the  Psalms  (xl.  7).  The  post-exilian  literature  is  as 
bare  of  it  as  the  preexilian  (Bar.  i.  10).  Consequently, 
the  argument  from  silence  is  worthless  for  proving  the 
earlier  non-existence  of  this  form  of  sacrifice.  When, 
in  the  post-Mosaic  times,  it  is  first  mentioned  (see  the 
passages  in  Ezekiel  above  cited),  it  is  without  circumlo- 
cution or  explanation  of  any  sort,  as  something  already 
understood.  No  law  original  with  the  exilian  scribes, 
or  in  their  period,  could  have  been  introduced  with  the 
abruptness  and  apparent  inattention  of  this,  in  the 
Book  of  Ezra,  where  (x,  19)  it  is  said  of  the  offending 
priests:  "And  having  trespassed,  (they  furnished)  a 
ram  of  the  flock  for  their  trespass." 

Of  Release  from  Vows  (Lev.  xxvii.  1-34). — It  is 
noticeable  that  the  chapter  which  contains  the  law 
concerning    vows,    especially     their    commutation,    is 

*  Once  (Num.  v.  8)  the  ram  of  the  trespass-offering  is  entitled  a  "  sin-offering." 


Laws  Peculiar  to  the  ''Priests   Code."  235 

made  apparently  with  design  an  appendix  to  the 
Sinaitic  legislation  (cf.  Lev.  xxvi.  46).  It  concerns  the 
regulation  of  a  permanent  custom  (cf.  Gen.  xxviii.  20  ff. ; 
Deut.  xxiii.  22-24),  which  might  not  be  overlooked,  but 
which,  properly  speaking,  formed  no  part  of  the  posi- 
tive religious  institutions  of  Israel. 

The  Hebrew  literature  shows  that  vows  of  a  relisfious 
nature  were  exceedingly  common  in  the  earlier  periods 
of  the  history,  and  this  of  itself  would  render  it 
exceedingly  probable  that  they  early  came  under  the 
restriction  of  written  law  (Judges  xi.  30 ;  i  Sam.  i.  1 1  ; 
Job  xxii.  27;  Jon.  i.  16;   Prov.  xx.  25  ;  Eccles.  v.   3-5). 

Again,  it  is  clear  that  regulations  of  this  sort  would 
be  far  more  likely  to  spring  up  in  the  period  before  the 
conquest,  when  such  high  hopes  ruled  respecting  the 
promised  land,  than  in  the  poverty-stricken  times  of 
Ezra  when,  even  for  the  ordinary  sacrifices  required  by 
their  ritual,  the  Israelites  were  so  largely  dependent  on 
the  generosity  of  their  Persian  lords  (cf.  Ezra  vii. 
1 1-26). 

And,  still  further,  the  exilian  and  post-exilian  prac- 
tice in  the  matter  of  vows  is  of  such  a  nature  as  to 
render  extremely  precarious  the  theory  that  our  present 
law  arose  in,  or  about,  the  year  444  b.c.  Malachi, 
whose  prophecy  dates  from  the  time  of  the  second  resi- 
dence of  Nehemiah  in  Jerusalem,  we  find  castigating 
the  contemporary  Israelite  for  so  bold  an  evasion  of 
our  code  as  the  substitution  of  a  worthless  female 
victim  in  place  of  the  male  that  had  been  pledged 
(i.  14).  He  singles  out  for  condemnation,  that  is,  a 
form  of  transgression  which  on  the  supposition  of  the 
introduction  of  this  code  just  before  would  have  been 
next  to  impossible.  It  had  expressly  forbidden  this 
very  thing,  and,  what  is  more  to  the  point,  forbidden  it 


2'i^6       The  Pcntateiich :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

on  the  penalty  of  losing  both  the  animals  (Lev.  xxvii. 
lo).  Moreover,  from  this  time  downward  the  degen- 
eracy grew  apace,  until  at  the  beginning  of  the  Chris- 
tian era  men  had  come  to  excuse  themselves  from  the 
holiest  of  duties  on  the  vain  plea  that  they  had  made 
a  vow  conflicting  with  them  (Matt.  xv.  5  ;  Mark 
vii.  9  ff.). 

Of  the  Nazarite  (Num.  vi.  1-2 1). — The  vow  of  the 
Nazarite  differed  from  the  ordinary  one  in  that  it 
affected  the  person,  was  one  of  abstinence  and  of 
separation  unto  the  Lord.  It  was  a  kind  of  volun- 
tarily assumed  priestly  sanctity.  The  long  hair  of 
the  Nazarite,  it  might  be  said,  answered,  in  its  way, 
to  the  regalia  of  the  sons  of  Aaron.  His  abstemious 
ness  and  avoidance  of  ceremonial  defilement  went  even 
beyond  theirs.  His  whole  life,  as  a  Nazarite,  must 
begin  anew,  if,  by  chance  or  by  design,  his  vow  had 
been  violated. 

That  this  peculiar  institution,  now,  was  of  Shemitic 
origin  (cf.  Jer.  xxxv.)  and  that  it  antedated  the  age  of 
Moses  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt.  The  cases 
of  Samson  and  of  Jephtha  show  that  it  was  already  a 
well-known  custom  in  the  period  of  the  judges.  And 
the  law  before  us  has  clearly  the  aim  to  regulate  the 
custom  in  unison  with  the  ritual  of  the  central  sanctu- 
ary. When  the  prophet  Amos  (ii.  11,  12)  fixes  upon 
this  as  a  characteristic  mark  of  the  desperateness  of 
his  times,  that  when  God  had  raised  up  Nazarites 
among  his  contemporaries  of  the  northern  kingdom, 
they  had  given  them  wine  to  drink,  it  is  alone  the 
recognized  legal  obligation  of  the  Nazarite  that  gives 
special  pertinency  and  force  to  the  charge. 

The  revival  and  expansion  of  the  order  in  the  time 
of  the  Maccabees  is  quite  too  late  a  phenomenon  to  be 


Laws  Peculiar  to  the  ^^  Priests^  Code!'  237 

an  echo  of  exilian  legislation  (cf.  i  Mace.  iii.  49).  Not 
a  trace,  in  fact,  appears  of  it  from  the  purely  incidental 
reference  of  Amos  to  the  equaUy  incidental  one  amidst 
the  reforms  of  Judas  Maccabaeus.  Priests  were  not  so 
plentiful  on  the  return  from  Babylon,  nor  a  life  of 
sanctity  so  sought  after,  that  a  law  of  the  nature  of 
this  would  have  been  the  natural  product  of  the 
period  ;  or,  if  arising  then,  would  have  been  so  com- 
pletely overlooked  by  its  chosen  annalists. 

Rite  of  Purification  at  Childbirth  (Lev,  xii.  1-18). 
—  It  is  to  be  emphatically  denied  that  the  Bible  gives 
any  encouragement  to  the  sentiment  that  the  mere 
act  of  giving  birth,  or  the  fact  of  having  given  birth, 
is  a  defilement.  The  condition  into  which  a  woman 
is  brought  by  the  birth  of  a  child  is  said  rather  to 
be  like  the  impurity  of  her  monthly  illness  (vs.  2).  It 
was,  to  a  certain  extent,  the  effect  and  evidence  of 
death.  Such  death,  as  the  penalty  of  sin,  had  not 
only  a  physical,  but  a  moral,  character.  One  needed, 
therefore,  to  be  ceremonially  purified  from  it.  Now, 
while  the  Jews  shared  with  other  nations  of  antiquity 
this  general  sentiment  and  various  laws  of  purification, 
still  they  moved  on  quite  another  plane.  It  cannot 
be  shown  that  either  in  their  deeper  moral  sense  of 
what  this  impurity  was  or  their  special  rules  for  rec- 
ognizing it  and  freeing  themselves  from  it,  they  were 
indebted  to  popular  influences  without  themselves. 
We  know  of  no  nation  antedating  Israel,  and  in  con- 
tact with  it,  that  could  have  supplied  these  regula- 
tions, much  less  giving  evidence  of  an  ethical  standard 
requiring  them. 

We  find,  moreover,  the  prophets  of  the  earliest 
period,  Amos,  Hosea,  Micah,  Isaiah,  and  Jeremiah, 
governed  by  the  same  general  conception,  and  appar- 


238       The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Strnctnre. 

ently  appealing  to  the  same  fixed  laws,  that  appear 
on  this  subject  in  Leviticus  (Hos.  ix.  3  £.  ;  Am.  vii. 
17;  Mic.  ii.  10;  Is.  XXX.  22;  Jer.  xix.  13;  cf.  2  Kings 
xxiii.  10). 

The  priest-prophet  Ezekiel,  it  is  true,  shows  an 
enhanced  interest  and  zeal  in  the  direction  of  cere- 
monial purity.  But  it  is  no  more  than  might  have 
been  expected  from  one  who  represented  here  the 
bloom  of  prophetical  teaching.  For  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  it  was  the  prophets  who  practically  did 
most  toward  developing,  in  Israel,  the  inclination  for 
ceremonialism,  even  while  fighting  it  in  itself,  by  the 
very  stress  they  laid  on  the  ethical  verities  that  lay 
beneath  it.  The  development  everywhere  is  of  such 
a  sort  as  to  require  the  presupposition  of  some  reg- 
ulative norm  corresponding  to  the  law  of  the  middle 
books  of  the  Pentateuch.  It  is  too  uniform,  it  is  too 
persistent,  it  is  too  serious  in  its  demands  upon  the 
conscience  to  be  the  offspring  only  of  an  uncertain, 
popular  custom. 

Purification  by  Means  of  the  Ashes  of  a  Red  Heifer 
(Num.  xix.  1-22).  —  In  the  peculiar  ceremonial  of  puri- 
fication in  which  the  ashes  of  a  red  heifer  were 
employed,  it  was  still  the  sense  of  impurity  produced 
by  death  that  chiefly  ruled.  And  it  is  not  to  be  over- 
looked that  it  is  the  Jehovist  who  places  at  the  begin- 
ning of  his  document  the  weighty  words :  "  In  the 
day  that  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  surely  die" 
(Gen.  ii.  17).  In  this  one  sentence  is  recognized  and 
asserted  the  vital  principle  that  underlies  every 
Elohistic  ordinance  of  purification. 

The  present  law  bears  no  date  and  has  no  history. 
In  the  order  of  the  narrative,  it  belongs  to  the  second 
year  of   the   exodus.     If   it  were   given   in   immediate 


Laws  Pcxuliar  to  the  ^^  Priests   Code.'*  239 

connection  with  the  plague  that  followed  the  rebellion 
of  Korah,  as  may  reasonably  be  supposed,  it  could 
have  had  no  wiser  setting  of  circumstances.  The 
fact  that  the  divine  communication  concerning  it  is 
made  to  Moses  and  Aaron  is  worth  noting.  It  is 
unusual.  Aaron's  installation  as  high-priest  is  thus 
assumed,  which,  if  it  be  not  a  conscious  perversion 
of  the  truth,  is  a  striking  support  of  it. 

Then,  further,  it  is  to  be  observed  that,  notwith- 
standing the  high-priesthood  of  Aaron  is  so  assumed, 
Eleazer  is  represented  as  the  one  who  carries  out 
in  detail  the  provisions  of  this  statute.  This  would 
scarcely  be  the  method  of  an  inventor,  especially 
of  one  inspired  with  the  purposes  ascribed  to  the 
exilian  projectors  of  the  Levitical  system.  Besides 
this,  the  people  are  spoken  of  as  though  still  in  camp 
(vs.  3,  9).  The  tabernacle  is  at  the  centre  of  ritual- 
istic worship.  Instructions  are  given,  which,  in  the 
later  times,  were  no  longer  understood.  Others  are 
omitted  which  needed  then  to  be  supplied.  In  fact, 
the  form  that  this  rite  assumed  in  post-exilian  Judaism 
proves  anything  else  rather  than  that  it  was  an  insti- 
tution owing  its  origin  to  the  austerities  of  the  Baby- 
lonian exiles.^  The  biblical  books  give  us  no  authority 
for  assuming  that  they  ever  actually  practised  it  at  all. 

Feast  on  the  first  of  the  Seventh  Month  (Lev.  xxiii. 
23-25  ;  Num.  xxix.  1-6). — The  feast  whose  observance 
was  appointed  for  the  opening  of  the  seventh  month 
is  of  importance  from  a  critical  point  of  view  out  of 
all  proportion  to  any  emphasis  that  is  laid  upon  it  in 
the  historical  books.  It  is  not  so  much  as  mentioned 
in  these  books,  or  anywhere  else  in  the  Bible,  out- 
side of    the  two    passages    cited    from    Leviticus    and 

'  See  Riehm's  Handwdrterbiich,  s.v.  "  Sprcngwasser." 


240       The  Pentateuch  :    Its  Origin  anet  Strncttire. 

Numbers,  unless  it  be  in  Neh.  viii.  9-12.  And  if  the 
event  recorded  in  Nehemiah  be  a  reference  to  it,  it  will 
repay  a  little  careful  attention.  For  it  is  of  this 
passage  that  it  is  oracularly  declared  that  it  marks 
the  primal  introduction  of  the  "  Priests'  Code." 

It  was  at  this  assembly,  it  is  alleged,  on  the  first  of 
Tisri  of  the  year  b.c.  444,  that  Ezra,  in  the  presence  of 
Nehemiah  and  with  his  countenance  and  cooperation, 
proclaimed  to  the  returned  Babylonian  captives  the 
priestly  laws  of  the  middle  books  of  the  Torah,  to  which 
they  had  hitherto  been  total  strangers.  ^ 

But  it  is  remarkable,  at  the  outset,  that  in  this  pas- 
sage in  Nehemiah  the  whole  people  recognize,  sponta- 
neously for  all  that  we  know  to  the  contrary,  the  first 
day  of  the  seventh  month  as  one  to  be  scrupulously 
observed.  They  gather  voluntarily  at  the  water-gate 
in  Jerusalem  on  that  day.  Then,  further,  we  find  Ezra, 
without  extraordinary  announcement  reading  to  the 
gathered  populace  from  "morning  until  midday"  out 
of  what  is  termed  "the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses." 
The  people  themselves  request  him  so  to  do.  And  the 
book  is  brought  to  him  from  some  quarter  where  it 
seems  to  have  been  sacredly  deposited.  As  he  reads 
the  voice  of  incontinent  weeping  breaks  forth  from  the 
assembled  multitude. 

What  is  it  that  so  touches  the  cords  of  tender  feel- 

1"  Dieses  Priestergesetz  war  noch  unwirksam  als  Maleachi  auftrat,  bis  Esra  am  i. 
Tishri  des  J.  444  in  Beisein  Nehemia's  vor  dem  Wasserthore  Jerusalems  es  (nach  Giese- 
brecht  sogar  schon  wesentlich  so,  wie  es  jetzt  im  Pentateuch  vorliegt,  mit  den  anderen 
Thoroth  zusammengearbeitet)  proklamirte.  Da  beugte  sich  die  Priesterschaft,  der  die 
Hut  des  mosaischen  Gesetzes  befohlen  war,  und  das  ganze  Volk  in  alien  seinen  Standen 
von  oben  bis  unten  sofort  widerspruchslos  unter  das  Joch  dieser  neuen  Thora !  Und 
werwardenn  der  Verfasser  des  fortan  massgebenden  Priesterkodex?  Esra  selbst  kann 
es  sein,  sagt  Kayser.  Aber  nein,  er  nicht  s.agt  Wellhausen.  Wer  also  denn !  Hier  fehlt 
die  Antwort  und  unser  Staunen  wachst,  denn  urn  so  kiihner  war  der  Gewaltstreich  des 
Reformators  und  um  so  schafsmassiger  die  junge  Kolonie,  die  sich  in  das  neue  Gesetz 
von  so  obskurer  Entstehung  einpferchen  liess."—  Delitzsch,  in  Zeitschriftfur  kirchliche 
Wissenscha/t,  etc.  1S80,  p.  624. 


Laws  Peculiar  to  the  ^^  Priests   Code."  241 

ing  ?  Is  it  the  "  Code  of  the  Priests  "  ?  What  part 
of  it,  pray  ?  Can  it  be  the  detailed  instructions  given 
for  washing,  clothing,  and  installing  their  ecclesiastical 
leaders  ?  Or  is  it  the  description,  chapter  by  chapter 
and  verse  by  verse,  of  the  tabernacle  of  Exodus,  the 
clever  work  of  Bezaleel  and  Aholiab,  the  rings,  the 
staves,  the  curtains,  the  knops,  and  the  bowls  ?  If  the 
chiefs  of  the  exilian  congregation  had  any  real  designs 
upon  it  of  the  nature  described,  they  would  surely  have 
spared  them  an  ordeal  of  this  kind.  But  if  it  was  not 
the  Levitical  laws  that  were  read  and  explained  and  that 
drew  forth  responses  so  unexpected  and  overwhelming, 
then  what  foothold  is  there  anywhere  in  the  record  for 
the  theory  that  this  was  the  occasion  of  their  earliest 
introduction  ? 

Still  further,  we  notice  that  it  is  not  alone  Ezra  who 
is  concerned  in  this  matter  of  the  first  of  Tisri,  b.c. 
444.  On  the  right  hand  and  on  the  left,  he  is  officially 
supported  by  more  than  a  dozen  priests  whose  names 
are  carefully  given.  As  many  prominent  Levites  cir- 
culate among  the  people  with  the  same  intent.  And 
Nehemiah,  the  civil  governor,  does  not  fail,  as  we  have 
intimated,  to  second,  by  word  and  act,  the  whole  pro- 
ceeding. If  it  be  masquerading  in  the  name  and 
character  of  Moses,  it  is  clear  that  all  the  principal 
representatives  of  Israel  are  implicated  in  it.  It  is 
no  usurpation  by  any  single  man  or  class  ;  it  is  a 
conspiracy  on  a  gigantic  scale.  But  to  suppose  that 
these  men  could  thus  have  duped  their  contemporaries 
into  the  acceptance  of  laws  as  Mosaic  which  were 
not  so  ;  to  suppose  that  had  they  perpetrated  such  a 
fraud  there  would  not  be  the  slightest  trace  of  it  in 
the  history  or  traditions  of  the  period  ;  to  suppose, 
in  view  of  the  great  moral  purpose  obviously  lying  at 


242       The  PentateiicJi :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

the  basis  of  this  as  of  all  other  portions  of  the 
Pentateuch,  that  any  of  these  persons,  or  any  one 
associated  with  them,  would  wish  so  to  impose  on 
the  credulity  of  his  generation,  are  all,  and  severally, 
impossible  suppositions ;  and  any  theory  that  bases 
its  support  upon  them  is  unworthy  the  confidence  of 
Christian  men. 

Moreover,  let  us  look  more  closely  at  the  way  in 
which  these  colonists  from  Ahava  celebrate  their 
festival.  It  has  every  appearance  of  being  an  imper- 
fect resumption  of  customs  long  neglected.  According 
to  the  ritual  of  the  "Priests'  Code"  the  day  was  to  be 
introduced  by  the  blowing  of  trumpets.  Here  there 
appears  to  be  nothing  of  the  kind.  The  people  are 
far  more  ready  to  weep  than  to  rejoice. 

For  this  day  there  had  been  ostensibly  appointed, 
too,  a  fixed  number  and  order  of  animal  sacrifices, 
burnt-offerings,  meal-offerings,  and  sin-offerings.  Not 
a  vestige  of  them  is  seen  here,  however.  On  the  con- 
trary, after  the  ceremony  of  the  public  reading  from 
the  Pentateuch  has  been  concluded,  the  people  are 
enjoined,  in  phraseology  as  strange  to  the  ritual  of 
Leviticus  and  Numbers  as  to  the  earlier  historical 
books,  to  go  their  way,  eat  the  fat,  drink  the  sweet, 
and  send  portions  to  them  for  whom  nothing  had 
been  prepared.  If  this  were  mainly  an  effort  to 
establish  and  give  currency  to  the  cycle  of  Levitical 
festivals,  why  are  the  most  essential  features  of  this 
one  overlooked  and  elements  so  foreign  to  it  authori- 
tatively introduced  ? 

TJie  Day  of  Atonement  (Ex.  xxx.  10;  Lev.  xvi.  1-34; 
xxiii.  26-32;  Num.  xxix.  7-1 1). — -The  most  important 
critical  questions  involved  in  the  ritual  and  history  of 
the  day  of  atonement  have  been  already  considered.^ 

1  See  p.  Ill  f- 


Laws  Peculiar  to  the  ^^  Priests   Code."  243 

The  hypothesis  that  assigns  its  origin  to  any  late 
period  falls  by  its  own  weight.  It  is  as  true  of  this 
observance,  as  of  that  of  the  feast  of  trumpets,  that 
no  certain  mention  is  made  of  it  in  the  historical 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  previous  to  the  exile.  But 
the  same  may  be  said  of  the  post-exilian  annals  of 
the  Jews.  Josephus  ^  is  the  very  first  to  refer  to  the 
matter.  The  argument  from  silence,  therefore,  is  of 
no  worth  in  the  present  case. 

The  manner  in  which  it  appears  in  the  code,  how- 
ever, deserves  attention.  It  is  confined  to  no  one  phase 
of  it,  but  it  is  treated  in  four  different  passages  belong- 
ing to  three  separate  books  of  the  Pentateuch.  In 
Exodus  there  is  but  a  bare  allusion  ;  still  one  that  is  as 
significant  for  its  comprehensiveness  as  for  its  brevity. 
It  presupposes  the  existence  of  the  ritual  and  refers  to 
the  one  annual  observance  of  it,  which  it  rigorously 
enjoins  for  all  the  future. 

Of  the  passages  in  Leviticus,  one  details  in  full 
the  solemn  offices  of  the  high-priest,  the  other  charac- 
terizes the  duties  and  obligations  of  the  day  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  people.  In  Numbers  the  required 
sacrifices  are  enumerated.  Such  a  fourfold  presenta- 
tion of  the  law  is  a  fact  of  moment.  It  can  never  be 
made  to  harmonize  with  the  assumption  that  it  is  a 
product  of  reflection  "by  the  waters  of  Babylon." 

Again,  if  there  are  no  references  in  the  prophets 
or  historical  books  that  positively  prove  a  preexilian 
observance  of  the  day  of  atonement,  it  is  just  as 
certain  that  there  are  none  that  disprove  its  potential 
existence  in  the  statute. ^  In  the  meantime,  other 
evidence  is  not  wanting  of  its  Mosaic  origin.     Every 

1  Antiq.,  xiv.  i6.  4. 

2  Dclitzsch  has  conclusively  established  this  in  the  Zeitschri/tfur  Kirchliche  IVitstn- 
scha/t,  pp.  173-181. 


244       ^'^^^'  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

phase  of  the  law  is  introduced  by  the  statement  that 
it  comes  from  him.  The  very  occasion  of  its  first 
announcement  is  declared  to  be  the  conspiracy  of  Nadab 
and  Abihu,  a  circumstance  that  has  not  the  slightest 
tinge  of  invention  about  it  (Lev.  xvi.  i,  2).  It  stands 
or  falls,  moreover,  with  other  alleged  Mosaic  institu- 
tions, some  of  which  have  the  support  of  the  Jehovist, 
equally  with  the  Elohist,  documents.  The  doctrine  of 
the  atonement,  in  fact,  holds  no  more  central  place 
in  the  Christian  religious  and  dogmatic  system  than 
does  the  day  of  atonement  in  the  Jewish  ethical  and 
ritualistic.  There  is  not,  for  instance,  an  allusion  to 
the  ark  with  its  peculiar  covering  —  and  there  are  more 
than  twenty  such  references  in  Exodus  and  Leviticus — • 
that  does  not  recognize  the  one  most  conspicuous 
feature  of  the  day  of  atonement.  The  title  "mercy- 
seat  "  seems  to  have  had  no  other  formal  or  moral 
basis  than  the  characteristic  act  of  the  high-priest  in 
sprinkling  there  the  blood  of  atonement.  In  the 
second  temple  there  was  no  ark  at  all.^ 

Such,  now,  are  a  few  of  the  particulars  in  which  laws 
peculiar  to  the  so-called  "  Priests'  Code  "  may  be  shown 
to  correspond  to  the  character  and  origin  they  claim 
for  themselves.  The  great  proportion  of  them,  it  will 
have  been  observed,  are  double-acting.  They  not 
only  favor  or  force  the  presumption  of  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  laws,  but  they  disprove  the  contrary. 

The  testimony,  moreover,  is  singularly  uniform  and 
hence  cumulative.  It  has  a  decided  qualitative  value 
too,  as  well  as  one  of  quantity  and  uniformity.  "  It 
is  not  the  evidence  of  witnesses  first  schooled  and 
cautioned    and    then    brought    into    court    to    do    their 

1  The  technicalities  of  our  law,  too,  in  other  respects  are  just  as  conspicuously  not 
exilian.  Its  word  for  fasting,  for  example,  is  qitm,  a  word  which  is  without  a  parallel  in 
'he  Pentateuch,  another  expression  being  always  used  (or  it. 


Laws  Peculiar  to  the  "Priests   Code."  245 

best  for  the  party  by  whom  they  are  summoned."  ^  It 
is  the  purely  incidental  testimony  rather  of  scores  of 
disconnected  facts  and  events  which,  notwithstanding, 
point  in  one  direction  and  voice  one  conclusion, 

"Every  revolution,"  says  Emerson,^  "was  first  a 
thought  in  one  man's  mind,  and  when  the  same 
thought  occurs  to  another  man  it  is  the  key  to  that 
era.  Every  reform  was  once  a  private  opinion,  and 
when  it  shall  be  a  private  opinion  again,  it  will  solve 
the  problem  of  the  age." 

One  great  difficulty  with  a  certain  current  type  of 
critics  is  their  unwillingness  to  acknowledge  that  the 
brain  of  a  Moses  could  have  conceived  and  have  carried 
such  a  system  of  laws  as  we  have  been  considering. 
If  it  was  first  a  thought  in  some  man's  mind,  there 
is  no  man  of  Old  Testament  times  more  likely  than 
he  to  have  had  that  thought.  That  the  same  thought 
did  not  also,  at  once,  occur  in  ripeness  and  fulness 
to  his  contemporaries  is  no  anomaly.  Revolutions 
are  a  growth.  Private  opinion  becomes  public  opinion 
only  by  long  preparatory  processes  of  evolution,  pre- 
ceded by  equally  long  and  rigid  ones  of  involution  and 
digestion. 

When  the  thought  of  Moses  did  actually  occur,  if 
formally  rather  than  spiritually,  to  other  men,  and 
his  private  opinion  became,  by  virtue  of  hard  expe- 
rience, their  private  opinion,  it  solved  the  problem  of 
post-exilian  Judaism  ;  it  became  the  key  to  that  pro- 
longed after-era  of  legalism. 

With  a  lawgiver  of  Mosaic  stature  and  prescience 
there,  with  a  scribe  Ezra  here,  and  a  thousand  years  of 
Israelitish  disciplinary  history  between,  no  incongruity 
of  the    narrative    surprises    us.     Given    a    Moses,  this 

1  Isaac  Taylor,  Historic  Proof,  London,  1828,  pp.  21,  22, 
*  Essays,  y.i.    New  York:   Lovell&Co.     1884. 


246       TJie  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Moses  of  the  Bible  at  the  genesis  of  the  development, 
and  an  Ezra  was  sure  to  follow  sooner  or  later.  Deny, 
however,  the  Moses  of  biblical  history  and  you  make 
an  Ezra  —  certainly  this  Ezra  —  a  wholly  impossible 
character. 

The  chief  figure  of  his  times,  he  has  in  that  case 
only  his  supreme  assurance  and  adroitness  to  rec- 
ommend him.  Portrayed  as  a  man  who  fasts  and 
prays  and  is  eager  for  reform,  we  see  that  it  is 
simply  as  a  cloak  for  plans  of  self-aggrandizement 
The  first  to  occupy  a  pulpit,  he  is  the  first  to 
prostitute  it  to  evil  ends.  Reputed  to  have  been  a 
principal  in  fixing  the  canon  of  the  sacred  books, 
the  information  fails  to  entertain  us  ;  for  the  books 
on  that  very  account  become  other  than  sacred  in  our 
eyes.  In  short,  it  is  no  fair  compensation  for  a  loss 
like  that  of  a  Moses  of  the  exodus  that  we  are  blandly 
introduced  to  this  Ezra  of  critical  manipulations  and 
hypotheses.  Our  admiration  of  him  grows  in  inverse 
proportion  to  our  knowledge  of  his  character  and  the 
biblical  record  of  his  life. 


Laws  Peculiar  to  the  "  Priests'  CodeT 


247 


TABLE  OF  LAWS    PECULIAR  TO  THE 
"PRIESTS'    CODE." 


EXODCS. 


28:1-43. 
29:1-42. 
30:22-33. 


Subject. 

Blasphemy, 

Sacred  Vestments, 

Consecration  of  Priests, 

Anointing  Oil, 

Higli  Priest  from  Elcazer's  Line, 

Who  niiprlit  Eat  of  the  Sacrifices, 

Special  Prerogatives  of  Priests,      .... 

Tabernacle  and  its  Furniture,         25 :  1-27 :19 ;  cf.  36 : 1-38 : 

31. 
Altar  of  Incense,  30:  1-21,  34-38. 

Table  of  the  Shew-bread,  25 :  23-30. 

Care  of  tlie  Lamps  of  the  Taber- 
nacle, 27:20,21. 
The  Burnt  Oflerin", 
Meal  and  Drink  Offering, 

Peace-OfFering, 

Sin-Offering, 

Trespass-Offering, 

Of  Release  from  Vows, 

The  Nazarite, 

Purification  at  Childbirth, 

Purification   by  the  Ashes  of  i 

Red  Heifer, 
Initinl  Feast  of  Seventh  Month, 
The  Day  of  Atonement,  30 :  10, 


Leviticus. 

24:15,16. 

6:12-1618. 
10:8-11;  21;  1-24. 

22  \  i-ie! 


NUMBEBS. 


15:30,31. 


25:10-13. 

18:  10  ft'. 

6:  22-27;  10:  1-10. 


24 :  5-9. 

24:1-4.  8:1-4. 

1:  1-17;  6:  1-6.  28:1-15. 

2:  1-16;  6:  7-11;  10: 

12,1.3.  15: 1-12;  chap.  38. 

3:  1-17;  7:  ll-.'M;  19: 

6-8;  22:  29,  .30. 


4-5:  1.3;  6:  17-23. 
5: 14-26;  7:  1-10. 
27:1-34. 

12:' 1-8.' 


23  •  23-25. 

lei  1-34  ;'23:  26-32. 


15:22-28. 
5 :  5-10. 


6:1-21. 


10:1-22. 
29:  1-6. 
39:7-11. 


VII. 

UNITY  AND  GENUINENESS  OF  DEUTERONOMY. 


The  surprise  awakened  by  recent  archaeological 
discoveries  in  Assyria  and  Egypt  has  left,  as  yet, 
little  opportunity  for  gauging  their  proper  scientific  and 
religious  value.  That  they  are  to  be  accorded  a  place 
of  increasing  prominence  in  the  province  of  biblical 
criticism  there  can  be  no  doubt.  To  have,  in  addition 
to  Moses  and  the  prophets,  the  testimony  of  such  as 
have  risen  from  the  dead  is  a  favor  not  granted  to 
every  age.  The  tone  of  assumption  might  well  grow 
milder  and  the  hand  of  violence  less  hasty  in  the 
presence  of  witnesses  like  these. 

We  read  with  less  patience  an  hypothetical  history  of 
Israel  dating  simply  from  the  period  of  the  judges,  with 
the  storehouses  of  Pithom  and  their  exodus  product,  of 
bricks  with  straw  and  bricks  without  straw,  just  rising 
from  the  dust  before  us.  We  spare  ourselves  the 
strained  attention  needful  to  follow  a  fine-spun  argu- 
ment designed  to  prove  the  barbarity  of  the  Mosaic 
period,  with  a  voluminous  literature  in  hand  reaching 
back  to  the  patriarch  Noah,  and  representing  in  devel- 
oped form  every  species  of  composition  known  to  the 
Bible.  We  have  something  tangible  with  which  to 
resolve,  at  least  to  make  credible,  many  a  so-called 
myth  of  Genesis  in  the  diluvian  slabs  of  our  museums, 
covered  with  a  contemporaneous  literature,  and  artistic 
seals  before  us  which  were  worn  bv  gentlemen  of  Ur  o^ 


Unity  and  Gcnnincncss  of  Deuteronomy.  249 

the  Chaldees  before  the  days  of  Abraham.  We  rise  up, 
in  short,  from  the  reading  of  such  a  book  as  Sayce's 
Fresh  Light  from  the  Ancient  Monuments}  Schradcr's 
KeilinscJiriften  nnd  das  Alte  Testainent^  or  Hommel's 
volumes  on  Die  Semiten  nnd  iJire  Bede7itiing fiir  die  Kul- 
turgeschichte^  or  the  works  of  Brugsch-Bey  and  Ebers 
on  Egypt,  with  the  feeling  that,  notwithstanding  the 
scholarly  equipment  and  stubborn  confidence  of  those 
assailing  the  historical  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch, 
its  defenders  have  no  occasion  to  be  daunted.  As  often 
before,  the  earth  is  helping  the  woman.^  Deductions 
have  been  based  on  a  far  from  complete  induction. 
The  goddess  Isis  is  represented  on  the  Egyptian  monu- 
ments with  the  crux  ansata,  or  sign  of  life,  in  her  right 
hand,  and  in  her  left,  as  a  wand,  a  papyrus  stem.^  And 
who  shall  say  to  what  honor  the  humble  papyrus  leaf 
and  its  companion  witnesses  may  yet  come  in  the 
hands  of  that  Providence  which  began  with  the  begin- 
ning, and  will  go  on  with  its  great  purposes  to  the  end, 
of  human  history } 

Moreover,  if  the  course  of  Old  Testament  criticism 
be  followed  from  its  inception  to  the  present  time 
a  similar  impression  will  be  made  by  no  small  part  of 
it  of  inconsequent  claims  and  preposterous  conclusions. 
And  to  this  characterization  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy 
offers  no  exception.     It  was  English  deism  that  first 

'The  Religious  Tract  Society  (London,  1884).  This  author  remarks  (Preface,  p.  3): 
"  The  same  spirit  of  scepticism  which  had  rejected  the  early  legends  of  Greece  and  Rome 
had  laid  its  hands  on  the  Old  Testament  and  had  determined  that  the  sacred  histories 
themselves  were  but  a  collection  of  myths  and  fables.  But  suddenly,  as  with  the  wand  of 
a  magician,  the  ancient  eastern  world  has  been  reawakened  to  life  by  the  spade  of  the 
explorer  and  the  patient  skill  of  the  decipherer,  and  now  we  find  ourselves  in  the  presence 
oV  monuments  which  bear  the  names  or  recount  the  deeds  of  the  heroes  of  Scripture.  One 
by  one  these  '  stones  crying  out '  have  been  examined  or  more  perfectly  explained,  while 
others  of  equal  importance  are  being  continually  added  to  them." 

2  Leipzic,  18S1,  2te  Aufl.,  1883. 

3  Leipzic,  from  1881.  ■•  Rev.  xii.  16. 

6  Wilson,  The  Eeypt  of  the  Past  (London,  1881),  p.  15. 


250        The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Strncture. 

set  afloat  the  theory  that  the  work  was  the  product  of 
the  seventh  century,  an  essential  forgery  of  the  subtle 
priest  Hilkiah.^  And  for  more  than  a  century  since 
there  is  scarcely  an  hypothesis  from  A  to  Z  that  has 
not  been  inquisitively  tried  upon  it ;  but  only  to  leave 
the  criticism  of  to-day  as  widely  divergent  as  ever  in  its 
opinions. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  present  century  Vater  as- 
signed the  book  to  the  period  of  the  exile.^  De  Wette, 
the  several  editions  of  whose  Introduction  to  the  Old 
Testament  are  a  literary  curiosity  in  the  variety  of 
views  they  have  from  time  to  time  represented,  finally, 
like  his  English  predecessor,  fixed  upon  the  period  of 
King  Josiah  as  the  date  of  its  completion  and  surrepti- 
tious introduction,  excepting  some  minor  portions 
thought  to  be  products  of  the  Assyrian  period.^ 
Stahelin  held  that  the  author  of  Deuteronomy  was  the 
same  person  who  worked  over  the  fundamental  Elohim 
document  —  now  called  the  "  Priests'  Code" — extend- 
ing through  the  first  four  books  of  the  Pentateuch  and 
the  Book  of  Joshua,  and  that  he  brought  the  whole 
Hexateuch  to  its  present  state  during  the  reign  of 
Saul.^  Bleek^  advocated  somewhat  similar  views,  but 
maintained  that  Deuteronomy  was  composed  by  a  later 
independent  editor  —  not  the  Jehovist  —  who  closed 
up  his  labors  with  this  production  about  the  time  of 
Manasseh.  The  Song  of  Moses  (xxxii.)  was  written,  he 
claimed,  by  some  poet  of  the  time  of  Ahaz  or  Heze- 
kiah.  There  was  nothing  whatever  in  the  book,  he 
averred,  or  in  any  part  of  the  Pentateuch,  to  justify  the 
theory  of  its  composition  as  late  as  the  exile.     It  was, 

*  Parvish,  Inquiry  into  the  Jeivish  and  Christian  Revelation,  p.  324. 
2  Com.  liber  den  Pent.,  vol.  iii.  pp.  391-728. 

*  Einleit.,  Achte  Ausgabe,  p.  323. 

*  Stiidien  und  Kritiken  (1835),  p.  462  f.;   Specielle  Einleit.  (1862),  pp.  22-34. 
^  Einleit.  {^%^^),^.■Lo^{. 


Unity  and  Genuineness  of  Deuteronomy.  251 

in  fact,  the  whole  Hexateuch  that  was  found  in  the 
temple  by  the  priest  Hilkiah.  Movers/  in  an  exhaus- 
tive monograph,  demonstrated  the  utter  groundlessness 
of  the  supposition  that  Deuteronomy  was  a  forgery  of 
King  Josiah's  time.  Ewald^  was  of  the  opinion  that 
the  first  thirty  chapters  of  the  work  were  written  by 
some  person  in  the  time  of  Manasseh  ;  the  remaining 
chapters  being  a  composite,  but  of  not  much  later  date. 
Knobel  ^  adopted  the  theory  that  the  author  of  Deuter- 
onomy (i.-xxxi.  14)  was  the  one  who  wrote  also  a  large 
part  of  Joshua,  and  brought  the  whole  Hexateuch  to 
its  present  state  not  earlier  than  the  reign  of  Josiah. 
It  will  be  noticed  that  up  to  this  point  the  drift 
of  sentiment  —  a  drift  it  should  be  called  —  is  almost 
altogether  in  the  direction  of  making  Deuteronomy 
the  youngest  portion  of  the  Pentateuch.  It  is  well 
represented  by  Bleek,  who  says:*  "It  may  be  held  as 
certain  that  the  Deuteronomic  laws,  together  with 
the  addresses  they  contain,  as,  indeed,  the  whole  of 
Deuteronomy  from  the  beginning,  was  written  with 
reference  to  the  preceding  history  of  the  people  and 
the  legislation  of  Moses,  and  to  continue  and  supple- 
ment it.  And  it  is  decidedly  false  to  hold  with  Vater, 
Von  Bohlen,  Vatke,  and  George  that  Deuteronomy  with 
the  laws  it  contains  is  older  than  the  foregoing  books 
with  their  legislation."  And  yet,  to-day,  this  camp  of 
Blcck  and  his  illustrious  compeers  —  De  Wctte,  Ewald, 
and  others  —  is  confronted  by  a  large  body  of  scholars, 
marshaled  by  the  latest  editor  of  Bleek's  Introduction, 
who  confidently  assert  the  direct  opposite  of  that 
so  confidently  asseverated  by  these  acknowledged 
masters  of  Old  Testament  criticism. 

1  Zeitschrift/icr  kathoUsche  Theolog^ie,  1834,  1835. 

*  GeschicIUe  d.  I'olkes  Is.  (1843,  3'<^  And.,  1864),  i.  96  f.  et passim. 

s  Commeutar  {in  Kurzgcfasstes  exegct.  Handbuch  zuni  A.  T.,  1861),  p.  579  f. 

*  Einlcit.,  ibid.  p.  107. 


252        TJie  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origm  and  Structure. 

Reenforced  by  Graf,  Kuenen,  Kayser,  Wellhausen, 
and  many  more,  the  condemned  theory  of  Vater  and 
Vatke  is  now  in  the  ascendant.  And  though  the  hypoth- 
esis of  the  origin  of  the  Deuteronomic  legislation  a  great 
while  after  the  age  of  Moses  is  retained,  it  is  made, 
with  a  slight  exception,  the  introduction  to,  and  not  the 
conclusion  of,  the  Pentateuch  codes  ;  while  its  histor- 
ical portions  are  relegated  to  that  convenient  limbo  of 
all  otherwise  unorganized  material,  the  time  of  the 
exile.  Is  it  a  better  scholarship  or  a  sharper  critical 
acumen  that  has  brought  about  so  radical  and  revolu- 
tionary a  change  of  front  .-'  We  venture  to  suggest 
that  it  is  the  growing  influence  of  the  doctrine  of 
naturalistic  development.  The  fathers  of  Old  Testa- 
ment criticism  held  in  no  mean  estimation  the  sacred 
Scriptures  themselves  as  something  to  be  considered, 
reverently  studied,  deferred  to.^  Their  sons,  it  would 
seem,  carried  away  by  the  subtle  but  imperious  spirit 
of  their  time,  can  see  nothing,  venerate  nothing,  save 
their  Procustean  hypothesis  of  historical  evolution.^ 

Moreover,  we  find  just  as  little    essential    harmony 
among  the  later  scholars  as  among  the  earlier  ;  perhaps 

•  De  Wette's  remark  (as  quoted  by  Kleinert,  Das  Denteronomitim,  p.  3) :  "I  did  not 
begin  the  criticism.  Now  that  it  has  begun  its  dangerous  game,  it  must  be  played 
through;  for  only  that  is  good  which  is  perfect  of  its  kind,"  is  reverence  itself  compared 
with  some  of  Wellhausen's  utterances. 

2 Rawlinson,  in  his  recent  book.  The  Religions  of  the  Ancient  WoHd ,  aiiivcs  at  the 
following  conclusions  (p.  242  f.) :  "  The  historic  review  which  has  been  here  made  lends 
no  support  to  the  theory  that  there  is  a  imiform  growth  and  progress  of  religions  from 
fetishism  to  polytheism,  from  polytheism  to  monotheism,  from  monotheism  to  positivism, 
as  maintained  by  the  followers  of  Comte.  None  of  the  religions  here  described  shows  any 
signs  of  having  been  developed  out  of  fetishism,  unless  it  be  the  Shamanism  of  the 
Etruscans.  In  most  of  them  the  monotheistic  idea  is  most  prominent  at  the  first,  and 
gradually  becomes  obscured,  and  gives  way  before  a  polytheistic  corruption.  In  all  there 
is  one  element,  at  least,  which  appears  to  be  traditional,  namely,  sacrifice,  for  it  can  scarcely 
have  been  by  the  exercise  of  his  reason  that  man  came  so  generally  to  believe  that  the 
superior  powers,  whatever  they  were,  would  be  pleased  by  the  violent  death  of  one  or 
more  of  their  creatures.  Altogether,  the  theory  to  which  the  facts  appear  on  the  whole 
to  point  is  the  existence  of  a  primitive  religion  communicated  to  man  from  without, 
whereof  monotheism  and  expiatory  sacrifice  were  parts,  and  the  gradual  clouding  over 
of  its  primitive  revelation  everywhere,  unless  it  were  among  the  Hebrews." 


Unity  and  Genuineness  of  Deutcrononty.         253 

there  is  even  less  of  it.  They  are  not  agreed  on  the 
question  whether  Deuteronomy  is  a  priestly  or  a  pro- 
phetic document  ;  whether  it  was  forged  in  the  time  of 
the  early  kings  or  only  found  then  ;  whether  it  is  essen- 
tially a  unit  in  its  history  and  laws,  or  the  historical 
portions  were  framed  about  the  laws  by  some  exilian 
expert  in  literary  appropriations  and  adaptations  ; 
whether  its  laws^.as  now  extant,  came  from  one  hand  or 
have  been  considerably  modified  in  their  transmission  ; 
whether  some  of  the  book  is  Mosaic,  by  way  of  oral 
tradition,  or  none  of  it  ;  whether  it  claims  to  be  from 
the  lawgiver  of  the  exodus,  or  makes  no  such  claim  ; 
whether,  if  it  be  not  what  it  purports  to  be,  it  is  to  be 
regarded  as  a  gross  offence  against  morality,  or  one  to 
be  readily  condoned  as  simply  a  legal  fiction,  in  the 
sense  of  Roman  jurisprudence  and,  as  we  suppose,  of 
Roman  morals.  In  such  a  state  of  things  there  is 
clearly,  as  yet,  no  logical  obligation  laid  upon  us  to 
leave  the  old  moorings.  There  is  one  thing  to  be 
dreaded  even  more  than  conservatism,  and  that  is 
chaos.  We  accordingly  proceed  to  inquire  whether  it 
be  not  possible  on  other  principles,  lying  near  at  hand 
and  scientific  in  their  nature,  —  using  that  word  in  its 
truest  sense  and  not  as  a  shibboleth,  —  to  reach  results 
before  which  a  candid  judgment  will  readily  bow. 

First,  then,  there  are  abundant,  and  abundantly 
satisfactory,  grounds  for  maintaining  the  literary  and 
material  unity  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy.  It  is  a 
remarkable  example  of  it  in  its  outward  form.  One 
might  be  safely  challenged  to  point  to  another  book 
of  the  Bible  that  is  more  so.  The  few  verses  of  intro- 
duction are  singularly  appropriate  (i.  1-5)  and  so 
detailed  as  it  respects  dates  and  places,  amounting 
almost    to    a  species   of    literary  triangulation,  that   it 


254       ^^^^^  Pentateuch:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

scarcely  offers  a  choice  between  a  theory  of  honest 
history  and  egregious,  not  to  say  impossible,  invention. 
It  tells  just  where  the  Israelites  were  when  these 
addresses  were  uttered,  fixing  the  spot,  as  I  have  said, 
with  little  less  than  geometric  exactitude  by  refer- 
ences to  half  a  dozen  other  places  in  the  neighborhood. 
It  gives  the  year  of  the  wilderness  wanderings,  the 
month,  and  even  the  day  of  the  month,  in  noticeable, 
though  clearly  undesigned,  coincidence  with  other 
important  chronological  data  of  the  history.  The 
crossing  of  the  Jordan  was  on  the  tenth  of  Abib  of 
the  following  year  (Josh.  iv.  19).  The  previous  month 
had  been  spent  in  mourning  for  the  departed  chief 
(Deut.  xxxiv.  8).  Hence  ten,  full,  solemn  days  are 
left  for  the  delivery  of  the  great  discourses  of  our  book. 
The  whole  is  popular,  hortatory,  retrospective,  and 
spiritually  elevating,  nowhere  falling  below  the  key 
struck  in  the  opening  announcement  :  "  These  are  the 
words  which  Moses  spake  unto  all  Israel." 

The  first  address  (i.  6-iv.  43)  is  a  pertinent  review  of 
the  salient  points  in  the  history  of  the  preceding  forty 
years,  especially  in  its  bearing  on  the  present  emer- 
gency. It  looks  and  points  directly  forward  to  the 
following  section,  and  is  logically  and  indissolubly 
bound  to  it  by  continual  and  emphatic  reference  under 
the  title  of  "this  law,"  "these  statutes  "  (i.  5  ;  iv.  i,  2, 
6,  8,  9,  14,  44),  although  being  itself,  in  this  part,  solely 
a  resume  of  well-known  historical  events.  It  ends  with 
Moses'  selection  of  the  three  transjordanic  refuge 
cities,  serving  at  once  as  the  fulfilment  of  a  promise 
(Ex.  xxi.  13)  and  a  pledge  of  heroic  faith  that  their 
counterparts  beyond  the  flood  would  also  be  achieved 
(Deut.  xix.  1-13).  The  entire  discourse  in  its  present 
form  might  easily  have  been  spoken  in  half  an  hour. 


Unity  and  Gennincness  of  Deuteronomy.  255 

The  second  address  (iv.  44-xxvi,),  being  the  kernel 
of  the  book  and  a  little  more  than  three  times  as  long 
as  the  first,  occupies  itself  mostly  with  a  free  recapitu- 
lation, in  popular  form,  of  earlier  enactments,  but  with 
such  modifications  and  timely  additions  as  prove  the 
hand  of  the  Master.^ 

The  third  discourse  (xxvii.-xxx.)  forms  as  naturally 
the  conclusion  of  the  second  as  the  first  had  formed 
its  introduction.  There  the  choice  of  the  refuge  cities 
witnessed  to  the  heroic  faith  of  Moses.  Here  the 
imposing  ceremonial  appointed  for  Ebal  and  Gerizim 
proves  his  moral  earnestness  and  high  prerogative  as 
the  lawgiver  of  his  people.  Seconded  now  by  the 
elders,  and  again  by  the  priests  and  Levites,  he  sets 
forth  in  words  that  echo  and  reecho  in  every  subse- 
quent period  of  Jewish  history  the  fact  that  God's  laws 
have  a  reverse,  as  well  as  an  obverse,  side  ;  that  the 
divine  covenant  was,  indeed,  a  hope  and  an  encour- 
agement, but  was  also  a  responsibility  and  a  warning. 

Then,  in  the  following  chapter  (xxxi.),  this  grand 
old  man,  with  a  touching  allusion  to  his  infirmities 
and  approaching  death,  in  the  presence  of  the  people 
impressively  passes  over  into  the  hands  of  his  suc- 
cessor his  great  trust,  and  at  the  same  time  delivers 
with  suitable  instructions  to  the  priests  a  copy  of  what 
he  calls  "this  law."  Up  to  this  point  what  could  be 
more  obvious  than  a  complete  oneness  of  design  and 
representation  throughout  our  book  }  The  beginning 
(i.  3,  5)  looks  forward  to  the  end  ;  and  the  end  while 
taking  up  the  very  epithets  and  phrases  of  the  begin- 

'Delitzsch  (Curtiss,  Levitical  Priests,  Preface,  p.  9)  with  his  usual  sagacity  has 
noted  this  fact,  and  speaks  of  the  "psychological  truth"  of  these  "testamentary 
addresses,  the  freshness  and  richness  of  the  Egyptian  reminiscences,  the  freedom  with 
which  the  author  reproduces  historical  incidents,  laws,  and,  above  'all,  the  Decalogue, 
a  freedom  which  is  scarcely  conceivable  except  on  the  supposition  that  the  speaker  was 
the  lawgiver  himself." 


256       TJie  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Stnicture. 

ning  carries  on  its  thought  to  the  only  possible  climax. 
It  is,  in  short,  the  unity  of  nature,  of  inward  logical 
dependence  and  sequence,  and  no  uniformity  forced 
upon  it  from  without. 

To  this  unity  the  two  following  chapters  (xxxii., 
xxxiii.)  containing  Moses'  Song  and  Moses'  Blessing 
make  certainly  no  interruption.  They  rather  grow 
out  of  the  circumstances  that  go  before,  as  the  flower 
from  its  bud.  They  are  strictly  Deuteronomic  in  the 
best  sense  of  the  word  and  fittingly  crown  the  work  ; 
and  both  are  documentarily  claimed  as  utterances 
of  Moses  just  prior  to  his  climbing  of  Nebo  on  his 
way  to  the  better  Canaan.  And  finally,  the  closing 
sections  of  the  book  (xxxiv.),  by  some  other  sympa- 
thetic hand,  that  tell  how  Moses  died  and  was  buried 
according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  how  the  people 
mourned  for  him,  and  what  they  thought  of  him,  form 
a  conclusion  for  the  whole  that  is  as  fitting  as  it  is 
moving  and  beautiful. 

No  less  than  in  its  literary  structure  the  book  of 
Deuteronomy  is  a  unit  in  its  language  and  style.  I 
am  aware  how  uncertain  arguments  based  on  the 
mere  coloring  of  language  have  come  to  be  regarded. 
Undoubtedly  too  much  weight  has  sometimes  been 
attributed  to  them.  But,  in  the  present  case,  the 
fact  is  so  patent  that  the  scholar  has  little  advantage 
over  the  unlearned,  if  he  be  an  observant,  reader. 
Still,  the  testimony  of  acknowledged  masters  in  bibli- 
cal criticism  may  serve  to  strengthen  the  impression 
which  even  a  cursory  reading  of  the  book  cannot  fail 
to  make. 

Of  these  authorities  Bleek  deservedly  stands  among 
the  foremost  for  candor  and  scholarship.  It  is  with 
a  refreshing  confidence  of  tone  that  he  expresses  him- 


Unity  and  Genuineness  of  Deuteronomy.  257 

self  on  this  point  :  ^  "This  book  in  general,"  he  says, 
"  offers  unmistakably  a  greater  unity  of  representation 
and  of  substance  than  the  foregoing.  This  is  true 
especially  of  the  longer  addresses,  the  didactic,  as  well 
as  the  legislative  portions  (i.-iv.  40 ;  iv.  44-xxvi.  ; 
xxviii.-xxx.).  These  parts  are  so  much  alike  in  lan- 
guage and  all  characteristic  features  that  we  may 
accept  it  as  certain  —  and,  moreover,  there  is  scarcely 
any  dispute  about  it  —  that  they  were,  generally  speak- 
ing, composed  in  the  form  in  which  they  now  lie 
before  us  by  one  and  the  same  writer." 

So  Dillmann,^  with  no  less  assurance  and  directness, 
although  writing  twenty  years  later,  and  from  a  dif- 
ferent point  of  view :  "  Deuteronomy  is  anything 
rather  than  an  original  book  of  the  law.  On  the 
contrary,  it  is  a  new  didactic  recommendation  and 
explanation  of  the  old  law  for  the  people.  Nothing 
is  gained  by  sundering  chaps,  xii.-xxvi.  from  the  rest 
of  the  book  ;  for  here,  too,  there  is  everywhere  mani- 
fest the  same  spirit,  the  same  language,  and  the  same 
purpose  as  throughout." 

Delitzsch,^  likewise,  while  still  holding,  notwithstand- 
ing the  desperate  conclusions  that  have  been  drawn 
from  it,  the  hypothesis  of  separate,  determinable  docu- 
ments in  the  Pentateuch,  considers  that  "  the  style 
of  Deuteronomy  marks  it  off  indubitably  as  something 
unique  and  entire  in  itself."  "  Deuteronomy,"  he 
says,  "to  its  close  is  cast  in  one  mould.  The 
historical  connections,  conclusions,  transitions,  state- 
ments have  the  same  coloring  as  the  addresses.  The 
addresses  are  freely  reproduced,  and  the  reproducer 
is    identical    in    person    with    him  who    composed   the 

'  Einlett.,  p.  106. 

^  Die  Buclicr  Ex.  u.  Levit  (in  Kurzgcfasstes  Handbucli),  Vorwort,  pp.  vii.,  viii. 

3  Zeitschriftfur  KirchUche  Wissenscha/t,  etc.  (1880),  p.  504. 


258       The  Pentateuch  :    Its  Origm  and  Structure. 

historical  framework  and  the  intermediate  historical 
portions.  In  a  similar  manner,  if  in  a  less  degree, 
this  unity  of  coloring  extends  through  Deuteronomy- 
proper,  that  is,  chaps,  xii.-xxvi.,  containing  the  repeti- 
tion of  the  law.  All  the  constituent  parts  of  the  book, 
not  excepting  the  legislative,  are  interwoven  with 
expressions  favorite  with  the  work  and  peculiar  to  it." 

And  Kleinert,  in  his  well-known  monograph  on  our 
book,^  remarks  :  "  The  literary  peculiarities  of  the  law 
in  Deuteronomy  are  at  the  same  time  peculiarities  of 
the  [historical]  framework  ;  and  precisely  the  same  lit- 
erary individuality  that  confronts  us  in  chaps,  v.-xxvi. 
makes  itself  felt  as  well  in  chaps,  i.-iv.,  as  also  in 
parts  subsequent  to  chap,  xxvii.  The  same  didactic 
tone,  there  as  here,  pervades  the  discourse." 

It  is  true  that  Kleinert  and  the  others  mentioned 
support  no  one  view  of  the  origin  and  date  of  the  work. 
It  is  true  that  their  opinions  are  not  uniform  as 
respects  its  concluding  portions.  But  as  against  the 
ipse  dixit  of  current  theorists,  who  have  come  to 
assume  it  as  proved  that  Deuteronomy  is  simply 
block-work  throughout,  where  sandstone  from  the 
exile  is  found  side  by  side  with  the  granite  and  gneiss 
of  earlier  periods,  it  should  be  decisive.  As  well  in 
the  strikingly  logical  arrangement  of  its  everywhere 
harmonious  material  as  in  the  confessed  coloring 
of  vocabulary  and  style,  the  work,  in  its  main  features, 
is  a  demonstrable  unity. 

In  the  second  place,  it  can  be  confidently  maintained 
that,  whoever  penned  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  as 
amanuensis  or  historiographer,  if  its  own  clear  and  con- 
tinually repeated  testimony  is  to  be  accepted,  Moses 
is  responsible  both  for  its  substance  and  general  form. 

^  Das  Deuterononiium,  p.  160. 


Unity  and  Genuineness  of  Deuteronomy.  259 

It  does  not  simply  belong  to  his  time ;  it  actually 
originated  with  him.  It  is  essentially  the  product 
of  his  divinely  illuminated  mind,  is  thoroughly 
penetrated  by  his  spirit,  and  in  outward  arrange- 
ment still  carries  throughout  the  peculiar  indi- 
vidual impression  he  left  upon  it. 

It  would  surprise  one  unacquainted  with  the  subject 
to  know  how  large  a  portion  of  the  book  is  put  directly 
into  the  mouth  of  the  lawgiver  and  is  represented 
to  be  spoken  by  him.  By  actual  enumeration  of 
verses,  it  makes  fifteen  sixteenths  of  the  whole 
matter.  Out  of  nearly  a  thousand  verses,  there  are 
but  about  sixty  that  are  not  in  the  form  of  direct 
address,  that  is,  that  do  not  purport  to  be  the  word- 
for-word  utterances  of  Moses  himself.  If  the  first 
thirty  chapters  be  taken  by  themselves,  the  relative 
disproportion  is  much  more  marked  ;  the  average 
of  introductory  or  explanatory  material  to  what 
remains  being  only  about  that  of  a  single  verse  to 
a  chapter.  All  of  the  rest  might  be  included  in 
quotation  marks. 

It  is  by  no  means  assumed  that  Moses  was  not  also 
the  author  of  a  part  at  least  of  this  subsidiary  material. 
But  the  attention  is  now  invited  to  the  extraordinary 
form  in  which  almost  the  whole  book  appears.  The 
space  required  for  introducing  the  speaker,  stating  the 
circumstances  under  which  his  series  of  addresses 
took  place  and  what  occurred  after  they  were  over, 
is  the  least  possible,  it  would  seem,  for  perspicuity. 
The  rest  comes  under  the  simple  rubric  :  "  These  are 
the  words  which  Moses  spake  to  all  Israel"  (i.  i),  or 
something  of  that  nature. 

The  name  of  the  lawgiver  is  found  thirty-seven  times 
in  the  book,  and   in  the  great  majority  of  cases  it  is 


26o       TJic  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origm  and  Structure. 

introduced  with  the  special  purpose  of  connecting  him 
authoritatively  with  its  matter.  The  strictly  legisla- 
tive portion  (xii.-xxvi.)  shares  this  peculiarity  equally 
with  the  historical  ;  the  first  person  being  used  with- 
out exception.  Omitting  the  last  chapter,  describ-^ 
ing  what  took  place  after  Moses  relinquished  his 
leadership,  there  are  less  than  half  a  dozen  exceptions 
to  this  uniform  classification  of  the  contents.  Every- 
thing else  is  stamped  and  sealed,  as  it  were,  by  such 
words  as,  "Moses  spoke,"  "Moses  commanded,"  "The 
Lord  said  to  Moses." 

It  is  a  remarkable  circumstance  and  one  which 
cannot  be  overlooked  or  evaded  in  any  worthy  dis- 
cussion of  the  genuineness  of  Deuteronomy.  If  the 
person  to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  the  book  as  we 
now  have  it,  whoever  he  may  have  been,  had  delib- 
erately set  out  to  place  beyond  all  dispute  the  question 
of  Mosaic  responsibility  for  its  contents,  it  would  be 
hard  to  say  how  he  could  have  stated  it  more  carefully 
or  wisely. 

This  is  not  all.  Not  only  is  Moses  made  responsible 
for  the  substance  of  the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  he  is 
equally  so  for  its  literary  construction  and  expression. 
It  is  declared  that  he  wrote  it  (xxxi.  9,  24),  and  wrote 
it  "  to  the  end "  —  an  addition  of  no  slight  impor- 
tance. It  is  true  that  the  term  employed  is  "this 
law,"  "this  book  of  the  law."  Still,  there  ought  to 
be  no  uncertainty  on  that  account,  considering  the 
form  in  which  the  work  is  cast,  its  own  usage  as  it 
respects  this  very  term,  and  the  admitted  unity  of 
language  and  style  throughout.  The  whole  book  up 
to  this  point  is  meant. 

Moreover,  the  so-called  "  Song  of  Moses "  (xxxii.) 
cannot  be  «^xcluded.     Of  this,  too,  it  is  said  that  Moses 


Utiity  and  Genuineness  of  Deuteronomy.         261 

wrote  it  at  God's  command,  and  taught  it  to  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  (xxxi.  22).  Of  the  blessing  with  which 
it  is  declared  that  "  Moses  the  man  of  God  blessed  the 
children  of  Israel  before  his  death,"  it  is  nowhere 
specifically  announced,  indeed,  that  he  also  composed 
it  and  left  it  in  a  written  form.  The  circumstances, 
however,  leave  scarcely  any  other  inference  open.  He 
was  not  a  man  to  recite  another's  composition  on  such 
an  occasion.  And  if  he  thought  it  needful  perma- 
nently to  shape  and  fix  the  foregoing  historical  and 
legislative  records,  and  was  concerned  not  to  leave 
them  to  the  uncertainties  of  oral  tradition,  he  would 
not  think  it  less  needful  to  do  it  with  this  series  of 
predictions,  whose  fine  shading  of  thought  might  be 
still  more  easily  obscured  and  lost. 

In  saying  now,  however,  that  we  have  the  authority 
of  Deuteronomy  that  Moses  composed  and  wrote 
Deuteronomy,  we  do  not  say,  necessarily,  that  it 
teaches  that  it  is  actually  his  autograph  ;  it  may  or 
may  not  be  that.  The  Epistles  ascribed  to  Paul  are 
no  less  truly  his,  and  were  no  less  certainly  written 
by  him,  because  his  own  hand  was  not  mechanically 
employed  on  many  of  them.  It  is  simply  meant  that 
the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  makes  the  claim  that  it  is 
Mosaic  in  its  present  literary  plan  and  structure  ;  but 
this  is  meant.  And  it  is  more,  and  is  clearly  intended 
to  be  more,  than  saying  that  the  book  is  substantially 
Mosaic,  gets  its  authority,,  under  God,  from  Moses. 
It  means  that  it  was  written  under  his  eye,  and 
received  his  approval  as  correctly  reporting  his  utter- 
ances, which  make  up  almost  the  whole  of  it. 

It  is  not  without  significance  that  after  authori- 
tatively connecting  the  lawgiver  so  many  times  by 
name  with  the  general  contents  of  the  work,  and  then 


262        The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  atid  Structure. 

ascribing  to  him  the  writing  of  it  to  the  end,  it  is 
further  stated  that  the  book  thus  completed  was  by 
him  formally  committed  to  the  custody  of  the  Levites 
for  preservation  beside  the  ark  (xxxi.  24  £.). 

How  in  the  face  of  all  this  circumstantial  detail, 
whose  truthfulness  as  a  whole  or  in  any  particular 
there  is  not  the  slightest  historical  ground  for  ques- 
tioning, one  can  still  say  that  Deuteronomy  makes  no 
claim  to  be  the  work  of  Moses,  it  is  not  easy  to  under- 
stand. Or,  admitting  that  such  a  claim  is  made,  and 
so  made,  as  well  by  implication  as  direct  statement, 
over  and  over,  in  every  part,  conspicuously,  emphati- 
cally, one  can  hold  that  it  is  simply  for  effect,  and 
was  never  intended  to  represent  a  fact,  is  quite  as 
inexplicable. 

Why,  it  may  be  asked,  if  this  were  the  case,  is  there 
nowhere  discoverable  in  earlier  or  later  Jewish  history 
the  shadow  of  a  tradition  that  language  is  here  used 
with  so  unheard-of  a  license  .-'  Is  it  credible  that  the 
whole  Jewish  race  from  Moses  to  Jesus  Christ  can  have 
conspired  to  pose  before  the  world  in  so  false  a  charac- 
ter, and  that  too  in  the  face  of  a  statute  for  which 
mankind  is  confessedly  their  debtor :  "Thou  shalt  not 
bear  false  witness  against  thy  neighbor"  }  Is  it  likely 
that  any  small  portion  of  it  colluded  to  hoodwink  the 
rest,  and  succeeded  in  doing  it  so  far  as  to  make  them 
believe  that  they  themselves  had  been  eyewitnesses  of 
various  great  events  during  a  long  period  of  years  of 
which  they  were  as  ignorant  as  the  man  in  the  moon  .'' 
"We  saw,"  says  the  speaker, — you  as  well  as  I, — 
"  the  sons  of  the  Anakim  "  (i.  28).  "  In  the  wilderness 
thou  didst  see  how  the  Lord  did  bare  thee  as  a  man 
doth  bear  his  son  "  (i.  31).  "And  I  instructed  Joshua 
at  that  time  "  [mark !  Joshua,  the  man  who  succeeded 


Unity  and  Genuineness  of  Deuteronomy.  263 

Moses],  "  saying,  Thine  eyes  have  seen  all  that  the 
Lord  did  to  these  two  kings"  (iii.  21).  Again,  alluding 
to  specific  circumstances  :  "  Your  eyes  have  seen  all 
that  the  Lord  did  because  of  Baal-Peor "  {iv.  3 ;  cf. 
Num.  XXV.  3). 

And  not  only  does  the  writer  assume  and  affirm,  but 
he  denies  the  opposite  :  "  I  speak  not  to  your  children, 
who  have  not  known  and  who  have  not  seen  the  chas- 
tisement of  the  Lord  your  God,  his  greatness,  his 
mighty  hand,  and  his  outstretched  arm  "  (xi.  2).  And 
near  the  end  of  the  book,  as  well  (xxix.  3-5) :  "Ye  have 
seen  all  that  the  Lord  did  before  your  eyes,  .  .  .  the 
great  temptations,  .  .  .  the  signs,  and  those  great 
miracles.  .  .  .  And  I  have  led  you  forty  years  in  the 
wilderness."  Four  times,  and  in  each  of  the  three 
leading  sections  (ii.  7 ;  viiii.  4 ;  xxix.  4),  the  length  of 
time  spent  by  Israel  in  the  eventful  journey  from 
Egypt  is  alluded  to.^ 

If  this  be  invention,  it  matters  not  in  what  king's 
reign  or  under  what  prophetic  or  priestly  sanction  it 
was  invented  ;  its  impudence  and  dishonesty  are  only 
equaled  by  the  stupidity  of  the  people  that  did  not 
discover  that  it  was  so,  or  discovering  and  knowing  it 
have  never  made  a  sign  that  they  accepted  it  otherwise 
than  as  literal  fact. 

It  is  claimed,  however,  that  there  are  indubitable 
marks  of  a  later  origin  stamped  on  the  book  itself  — 
anachronisms,  contradictions,  incidental  remarks,  geo- 
graphical, ethnographical,  or  explanatory  —  that,  what- 
ever else  may  appear  to  favor  a  Mosaic  origin,  point 
to  a  period  long  subsequent  to  his  day  for  its  compo- 

'  It  is  true  that  elsewhere  a  whole  generation  is  said  to  have  fallen  in  the  wilderness 
(cf.  Num.  xxvi.  64,  65).  It  was,  however,  only  the  males  over  twenty  years  of  age  who 
had  been  put  under  the  ban  (Num.  i.  3,45,49).  The  Levites  had  been  exempt  as  well  as 
the  women  and  youth.  So  that  the  congregation  was  still  identical  with  that  which  left 
Egypt. 


264       The  PeutatciicJi :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

sition  ;  at  least,  for  the  form  in  which  it  now  appears. 
It  may  be  well  to  consider  here  these  objections,  as 
far  as  they  relate  to  the  historical  portions  of  Deuter- 
onomy, before  adducing  additional  reasons  in  support 
of  Mosaic  authorship.  Still,  let  it  be  understood  that 
it  is  not  regarded  as  a  matter  of  superlative  importance. 
The  fly  on  the  elephant's  back  does  not  detract  from 
the  majesty  of  the  elephant. 

It  may  be  acknowledged  at  the  outset,  without  yield- 
ing an  iota  as  it  concerns  the  main  point  at  issue,  that 
our  book  has  some  scraps  of  supplementary  material ;  as, 
for  example,  to  mention  the  principal  one,  the  twelve 
verses  of  the  closing  chapter.  And  here  and  there  a 
remark  is  thrown  in,  possibly  editorial,  or  of  the  nature 
of  what  might  originally  have  been  a  gloss,  which, 
because  there  was  no  other  place  to  put  it,  has^ound 
its  way  into  the  text.  But  every  such  case  bears 
unmistakable  witness  to  itself.  There  is  just  as  little 
danger,  in  our  book,  of  confounding  this  subsidiary 
matter  with  the  body  of  the  work  as  there  would  be  if 
it  appeared  in  another  character,  or  was  printed  in  a 
different  color.  As  already  noticed,  fifteen  sixteenths 
of  Deuteronomy  is  in  the  form  of  direct  address ;  the 
name  of  the  speaker  being  in  every  instance  given  and 
being  in  every  instance  the  same. 

To  cite  these  exceptions,  therefore,  as  evidence  that 
a  fictitious  writer  of  a  later  day  has  unwittingly 
betrayed  himself,  is  to  make  a  simpleton  of  the  writer. 
Either  he  meant  to  conceal  his  identity,  or  he  did  not. 
If  he  did,  and  carelessly  dropped  into  this  method  of 
speaking,  it  was  an  example  of  imbecility  wholly 
unworthy  of  the  author  of  a  book  like  this.  If  he  did 
not  mean  to  conceal  his  identity,  but  to  have  it  under- 
stood that  he  was  some  writer  subsequent  to  Moses, 


Umty  and  Geimincness  of  Dcutcronoiny.  265 

then  he  just  as  certainly  meant  to  have  it  understood 
that  only  for  the  occasional  remarks  appearing  as  such 
to  the  dullest  intellect  is  he  responsible,  and  that  they 
are  in  no  sense  or  degree  intended  to  touch  the  ques- 
tion of  the  proper  authorship  of  the  book,  which  in 
more  than  a  score  of  cases  is  directly  imputed  to 
Moses. 

This  supplementary  matter,  however,  it  is  to  be  care- 
fully noticed,  insignificant  as  it  is  in  amount,  —  making 
up,  if  we  omit  the  concluding  sections,  but  two  per 
cent,  of  the  whole,  —  is  far  from  being  of  one  character. 
The  most  of  it  is  in  the  form  of  introductory  state- 
ments or  historical  reminiscences,  quite  pertinent  to 
the  context,  and  differing  from  it  only  in  the  one 
circumstance  that  it  is  expressed  in  the  third  person 
instead  of  the  first.  If  it  did  not  originate  with  Moses, 
there  is  no  intimation  or  proof  that  it  did  not.  The 
mere  fact  that  he  is  represented  as  one  spoken  of, 
instead  of  speaking,  —  the  analogy  of  other  biblical 
books  being  the  standard,  —  is  wholly  unimportant. 
What  is  actually  given  out  as  spoken  by  Moses  in 
propria  persona  could  not  be  so  represented  without 
some  such  narrative  portions.  It  is  not  the  handle  of 
the  knife  that  cuts  ;  but  the  handle  is  no  unnecessary 
means  in  the  process. 

Whether,  therefore,  Moses  is  to  be  directly  charge- 
able with  such  prefatory  remarks  as  "  These  are  the 
words  which  Moses  spake  (i.  i  f.)  ;  "  This  is  the  law 
which  Moses  set  before  the  children  of  Israel  "  (iv.  44) ; 
"  Moses  called  unto  all  Israel,  and  said  unto  them  " 
(v.  i),  and  some  other  like  things,  is  only  of  the  slight- 
est consequence  in  its  bearing  on  the  question  of  the 
genuineness  of  Deuteronomy.  Pie  surely  may  have 
been  the  author  of  them  for  all    that  anybody  knows 


266       TJie  PentateiicJi :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

to  the  contrary.  Inherent  improbability  arising  from 
their  contents  and  form  there  is  none.  But  when 
these  parts  are  subtracted  from  the  one  sixteenth 
of  the  book  not  included  in  addresses  positively 
ascribed  to  Moses,  the  residuum  is  scarcely  worth 
disputing  about.  It  cannot,  as  already  intimated,  fairly 
be  made  a  ground  of  dispute,  if  it  be  agreed  that  it 
is  of  the  nature  of  later  editorial  additions  but  only 
as  it  is  understood  to  represent  the  writer  of  the 
book.  And  then  we  have  the  question  to  settle,  Is 
it  of  such  a  character  as  to  misrepresent  a  Moses  of 
the  exodus  .<* 

« 

In  the  first  chapter,  for  example,  the  remark  in  verse 
2,  "There  are  eleven  days'  journey  from  Horeb  by  way 
of  Mount  Seir  unto  Kadesh-barnea  "  ;  and  in  verse  ii, 
"  The  Lord  God  of  your  fathers  make  you  a  thousand 
times  as  many  as  ye  are,  and  bless  you  as  he  hath 
promised  you,"  are  obviously  parenthetical.  The  latter 
may  have  been  uttered  by  the  author  of  the  work ;  the 
former  is  somewhat  less  likely  to  have  been.  Still, 
even  such  a  remark  would  not  have  been  without  its 
force  on  his  lips,  as  showing  that  a  journey  of  eleven 
days,  about  one  hundred  and  sixty-five  miles,  had  been 
prolonged  on  account  of  Israel's  intractableness,  to  one 
of  many  toilsome  years.  But  if  any  one  is  disposed 
to  object  to  such  an  explanation  as  forced,  let  it  pass. 
There  is  really  too  little  involved  to  require  a  discus- 
sion. Let  it  be  supposed  —  it  is  as  fair  a  supposition 
as  any  other  —  that  some  later  hand,  some  editor,  even 
as  late  a  one  as  Ezra,  made  the  addition,  as  he  would 
no  doubt  feel  that  he  had  a  perfect  right  to  do  ;  it 
would  not  prove  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  exilian  ; 
it  would  not  cast  so  much  as  a  shadow  on  its  essential 
authority  or  genuineness. 


Unity  and  Genuiiieness  of  Deuteronomy.         267 

Again,  at  ii.  10-12  (cf.  vs.  29)  the  narrative  is  simi- 
larly interrupted  by  a  remark  concerning  the  peoples 
who  had  dwelt  in  Moab  before  Lot  obtained  possession, 
and  in  vs.  20-23  of  those  who  had  previously  occupied 
the  land  of  the  Ammonites.  These  passages,  also,  may 
be  editorial  notes.  Their  form  encourages  such  an 
hypothesis.  They  are  quite  unique,  and  even  in  our 
English  version  are  put  in  parenthesis.  In  that  case 
they  offer  direct  evidence  that  the  work  as  a  whole  has, 
and  by  even  the  cursory  reader  is  assumed  to  have,  a 
point  of  view  and  a  course  of  thought  that  is  pecu- 
liarly its  own.  In  other  words,  as  thus  regarded,  they 
could  not  be  used  as  marks  for  determining  the  age  of 
the  work  in  which  they  are  found,  since  they  form  no 
real  part  of  it. 

But  there  is  no  imperative  necessity  for  holding 
them  to  be  later  additions.^  Very  late  additions,  it  is 
clear,  they  cannot  be ;  they  imply  too  exact  a  geograph- 
ical knowledge,  and  the  other  circumstances  are  too 
detailed.  Besides,  they  have  an  immediate  bearing  on 
the  thought  of  the  context.  If  God  had  driven  out 
many  and  strong  nations  before  the  descendants  of 
Lot,  and  given  them  now  a  permanent  possession 
which  was  not  to  be  disturbed,  would  he  do  less  for  the 
descendants  of  Abraham  and  Jacob  .'*  Whoever  wrote 
these  verses  had  the  intention  of  making  the  most  of 
a  fact  encouraging  to  the  Israelites  on  the  eve  of  the 
conquest.     Nothing,  consequently,  could  be  in    closer 

*  The  perfects  in  the  last  part  of  verse  12  may  easily  enough  be  prophetic  perfects,  and 
there  is  no  inappropriateness  in  the  way  of  speaking  in  verse  22  of  the  children  of  Esau 
in  Moses'  time  as  dwelling  in  Seir,  "  unto  this  day."  Sime  offers  another  explanation, 
referring  the  "  land  of  his  possession  "  to  the  conquests  that  had  already  been  made  east 
of  the  Jordan.  "  The  context  proves  the  accuracy  of  this  rendering.  '  Behold,'  it  is  said 
a  few  lines  afterwards  (Dcut.  ii.  24),  '  I  have  given  into  thine  hand  Sihon  the  Amorite, 
king  of  Heshbon,  and  his  land,  begin,  possess.'  The  beginning  of  the  conquest  is  the 
point  insisted  on  by  the  writer  of  Deuteronomy,  not  its  completion,  of  which  he  could 
have  known  nothing."  —  The  Kingdom  oy  All  Israel,  p.  438. 


268       The  Pentateuch  :    Its  Origin  atid  Structure. 

harmony  with  the  spirit  of  our  book.  Then,  further,  it 
is  not  to  be  forgotten  that  if  Moses  had  wished  to 
introduce  such  incidental  matter,  he  was  shut  up  to 
this  method  of  doing  it.  Footnotes  were  out  of  the 
question.  Other  ancient  writers,  and  those  not  so 
ancient  as  he,  Hke  Herodotus,  have  written  in  the 
same  way.^ 

The  note  in  iii.  9,  "  Hermon  the  Sidonians  call 
Sirion,  and  the  Amorites  call  it  Shenir,"  has  not  the 
same  clear  motive  underlying  it  and  may  be  said  to  be 
logically  unnecessary  to  the  thought  of  the  context. 
But  when  the  importance  of  this  mountain  as  a  land- 
mark in  Palestine  is  considered,  such  a  specification  of 
its  several  names  cannot  be  regarded  as  altogether 
superfluous.  The  question  how  Moses  could  have  been 
informed  of  the  facts  here  stated  has  been  mooted. 
Since  it  has  come  to  light,  however,  that  both  of  the 
foreign  designations  of  Hermon  were  well  known  in 
the  cognate  Assyrian  tongue,^  it  can  no  longer  be 
regarded  as  serious.  It  is  also  worthy  of  attention 
that  both  of  these  alternative  names  for  the  mountain 
appear  in  the  later  Hebrew  literature  (Ps.  xxix.  6 ; 
Ezek.  xxvii.  5  ;  Cant.  iv.  8  ;  i   Chron.  v.  23). 

So,  still  further,  in  the  immediate  context  (vs.  11), 
what  is  said  of  Og's  bedstead  or  sarcophagus  ;  and, 
again,  of  the  son  of  Manasseh  (vs.  14),  that  he  called 
the  land  he  had  obtained  possession  of  by  his  own 
name  "unto  this  day,"  one  may  explain  as  he  will,  the 
coloring  of  the  passages  is  most  emphatically  not  such 

'In  chap.  cxxv.  book  i  (see  Rawlinson's  Herod,  vol.  i.  p.  248  f.),  for  example,  a 
case  quite  similar  to  ours  is  found,  where  a  narrative  concerning  Cyrus  is  broken  in  upon 
by  a  description  of  the  different  tribes  that  made  up  the  Persian  nation.  "  Now  the 
Persian  nation  is  made  up  of  many  tribes.  Those  which  Cyrus  assembled  and  persuaded 
to  revolt  from  the  Medes  were  the  principal  ones  on  which  all  the  others  depended. 
These  are  the  Pasargadae,  the  Maraphians,  and  the  Maspians,  of  whom  the  Pasargadae 
are  the  noblest." 

"  Schrader,  Keilinschriften,  etc.  p.  158  f. 


Unity  and  Genuineness  of  Deuteronomy.  269 

as  might  have  been  expected  in  a  work  written  as  late 
as  the  seventh  century  b.c.  A  critic  must  be  hard 
pushed  to  take  refuge  in  such  a  position. 

It  has,  indeed,  been  objected  that  there  would  have 
been  no  occasion  for  calling  the  attention  of  Moses' 
contemporaries  to  such  particulars  concerning  the  land 
of  Bashan,  its  king  of  gigantic  stature,  and  the  like. 
But  that  is  not  the  point.  It  was  not  enough  that  they 
already  knew  these  things.  Deuteronomy  contains,  it 
is  to  be  observed,  an  important  addition  beyond  the 
account  in  Numbers  (xxxii.  41).  It  cites  the  circum- 
stance in  order  to  draw  an  important  lesson  from  it, 
as  in  the  case  just  considered.  The  sixty  so-called 
cities  that  had  been  captured  were  no  easy  prey  for 
any  marauding  bands  ;  they  were  fortified  towns  (see 
vs.  4,  5),  "fenced  with  high  walls,  gates,  and  bars."  ^ 
The  victories  had  been  signal  ones.  Should  not  the 
memory  of  what  God  had  then  wrought  on  their  behalf 
inspire  hope  now,  when  they  confronted  the  problem 
of  conquering  a  home  for  themselves  beyond  the  river .? 
Such  an  allusion,  therefore,  is  no  inadvertence.  It 
precisely  represents  and  voices  the  main  purpose  of 
the  book. 

Nor  is  there  anything  in  the  concluding  words  "  unto 
this  day  "  that  necessitates  a  different  conclusion.  It 
means  no  more  than  "so  far,"  "until  now."  Some 
months,  at  least,  had  elapsed  since  these  heroic  tasks 
had  been  so  thoroughly  accomplished   by  the    son    of 

'  In  view  of  what  modern  research  has  brought  to  light  concerning  these  giant  cities  of 
Bashan,  we  are  not  only  not  surprised  at  such  a  reminiscence  from  the  lips  of  Moses,  but 
rather  that  he  passes  over  tHe  matter  with  only  a  slight  reminiscence.  Cf.  Porter,  Five 
Years  in  Damascus  (London,  1855)  ;  Giant  Cities  of  Bashan  and  Syria's  Holy 
Places  (London,  i860);  Burton  and  Drake,  Unexplored  Syria  (London,  1872).  The 
difficulty  that  in  Deuteronomy,  Jair  alone  is  mentioned  as  the  conqueror  and  possessor  of 
Bashan,  while  in  Numbers  Nobah  is  made  to  share  it  with  him,  and  the  ajiparent  dis- 
crepancy in  the  number  of  cities,  are  explained,  among  other  things,  by  Kurtz,  History 
of  the  Old  Covenant,  iii.  467. 


2/0       The  PentatatcJi :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Manasseh  ;  and  that  was  time  enough  to  justify  this 
famiUar  phrase.  It  is  similarly  used  by  contempora- 
neous writers.  "  Ye  have  not  left  your  brethren  many 
days,  unto  this  day,"  said  Joshua  to  the  two  tribes  and 
a  half-tribe  that  had  assisted  their  brethren  in  their 
earlier  military  occupation  of  Canaan  (Josh.  xxii.  3). 
And  subsequently  in  reviewing  his  own  life,  this 
second  great  captain  of  Israel  says  to  the  people 
whom  he  had  so  often  led  to  victory :  **  But  you,  no 
man  hath  been  able  to  stand  before  you  unto  this  day" 
(Josh,  xxiii.  9).  There  is  no  room  for  uncertainty  in 
these  passages  as  to  the  length  of  time  meant  to  be 
covered  by  the  words  "  unto  this  day."  It  is  illogical, 
consequently,  to  base  upon  them  as  used  in  Deuter- 
onomy an  argument  for  the  post-Mosaic  origin  of  the 
book,  even  supposing  them  to  be  an  original  and 
constituent  part  of  it. 

Again,  it  is  claimed  that  the  writer  of  Deuteronomy 
betrays  himself  as  one  impersonating  Moses  by  his 
peculiar  use  of  the  Hebrew  words,  rendered  "  beyond 
Jordan,"  showing  that  he  writes  from  the  point  of  view 
of  Palestine  proper,  and  not  of  the  plains  of  Moab.  We 
submit  that  it  is  not  the  writer  of  Deuteronomy  who 
betrays  himself,  but  the  objector,  who  puts  a  quibble  in 
the  place  of  a  reason.  This  expression  occurs  ten  times 
in  our  book  (i.  i,  5  ;  iii.  8,  20,  25  ;  iv.  41,  46,  47,  49  ; 
xi.  30).  There  is  not  one  case  among  them  that  with- 
out positive  violence  and  a  false  exegesis  will  permit 
the  inference  that  has  been  drawn  from  it. 

The  words  mean,  taken  by  themselves,  "  at  the  cross- 
ing of  the  Jordan."  Used  alone  they  point  neither  to 
the  east  nor  the  west  side.  Just  what  is  meant  in  any 
given  instance  is  a  matter  which  can  be  determined 
only  by  the  context.     The  writer  of  this  book,  in  fact, 


Unity  and  Genuineness  of  Deuteronomy.  271 

employs  the  words  in  the  very  same  passage,  intelli- 
gibly and  with  clear  intention,  to  mean  now  the  east, 
and  again  the  west,  side  of  the  Jordan  (iii.  8,  20).  Con- 
scious of  the  ambiguity  of  the  phrase,  he  uses  it  in  no 
single  case  where  misunderstanding  might  arise  that 
he  has  not  himself  guarded  against  it.  He  says,  "  on 
this  side  Jordan  in  the  plain  over  against  the  Red 
Sea"  ;  or,  "on  this  side  Jordan  in  the  land  of  Moab  "  ; 
or,  "toward  the  sunrising  "  ;  or,  "by  the  way  where  the 
sun  goeth  down."  Every  passage  of  the  ten  is  thus 
rigorously  insured  against  the  possibility  of  error  by 
means  of  an  added  explanation,  excepting  one  (iii.  20), 
which  does  not  need  it.  How  absurd,  in  these  circum- 
stances, the  ado  that  has  been  made,  and  continues  to 
be  made,  over  these  words  by  critics,  learned  and 
unlearned,  who  seem  never  to  have  thoroughly  exam- 
ined the  connection  in  which  they  stand. 

Once  more,  the  thread  of  direct  address  which 
prevails  in  the  book  is  singularly  dropped  in  the  tenth 
chapter  {vs.  6,  7).  Moses  is  represented  as  discoursing 
of  what  took  place  at  Sinai.  The  first  tables  of  the 
law  had  been  broken,  the  second  prepared,  and  the  ten 
commandments  written  upon  them  by  the  finger  of 
God.  "And  I  turned  about,"  he  says,  "and  came 
down  from  the  mount,  and  put  the  tables  in  the  ark 
which  I  had  made  ;  and  there  they  are,  as  the  Lord 
commanded  me."  Upon  this  follow  two  verses  in  the 
narrative  form,  relating  to  certain  journeys  of  the 
Israelites  in  the  wilderness  and  Aaron's  death, — events 
that  occurred  many  years  later,  the  latter  nearly  forty 
years  afterward,  —  from  which  the  speaker  just  as  sud- 
denly goes  back  to  the  first  person  again  and  to  what 
happened  at  Sinai. 

The  thought  is  as   closely  connected  in  verses  five 


2/2       The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

and  eight  as  though  there  had  been  no  diversion.  It 
looks  like  what  would  be  called  in  geology  a  fault,  a 
displacement  of  material.  Still,  it  may  not  be  so. 
Reasons  of  more  or  less  pertinence  have  been  given 
why  Moses  himself  might  have  intentionally  digressed 
in  this  way.  For  our  purpose  it  is  enough  to  notice 
that  the  digression  does  not  reach  beyond  the  Mosaic 
age.  There  is  nothing  in  it  to  suggest  the  tampering 
of  a  later  hand.  If  it  be  out  of  place,  it  is  not  out  of 
character.  If  it  be  a  fragment,  it  is  to  all  appearance 
a  fragment  of  Deuteronomy  and  bears  the  marks  of 
the  period  of  the  exodus.^ 

Finally,  the  so-called  "Blessing  of  Moses"  (xxxiii. 
1-29),  although  introduced  as  from  him,  as  we  have 
already  noticed,  is  denied  to  be  his,  because  Moses,  it 
is  said,  would  never  have  styled  himself  the  "  man  of 
God,"  as  the  title  designates  him.  This,  however,  is 
not  so  certain.  He  surely  might  have  done  so  without 
presumption.  It  is  simply  the  name  of  an  ofifice,  and 
the  very  same  that  elsewhere  in  this  book  Moses  claims 
for  himself,  when  he  says  :  "  A  prophet  shall  the  Lord 
your  God  raise  up  unto  you  like  to  me  "  (xviii.  15). 

Still,  suppose  that  Moses  did  not  write  the  title  of 
the  poem,  it  would  not  follow  that  the  poem  is  not  his, 
as  somebody  in  the  ancient  time  —  everybody,  as  far  as 
we  know — affirms  that  it  is.  There  is  nothing  that 
appears  from  the  simple  reading  of  it  that  should  lead 
an  unbiased  mind  to  a  contrary  conclusion.  And 
Volck,  one  of  the  editors  of  the  later  editions  of 
Gesenius's  Hebrew  Lexicon,  who  has  written  an 
exhaustive    and    masterly    monograph    of    nearly    two 

'  The  list  of  places  to  and  from  which  the  journeyings  are  here  said  to  have  been  made 
are,  in  general,  the  same  as  those  found  in  Numbers  (xxxiii.  30-33) ;  but  they  differ  some- 
what in  their  spelling  and  are  given  in  a  different  order.  It  is  not  to  be  forgotten,  how- 
ever, that  the  Israelites  traversed  the  same  ground  more  than  once  and  in  different 
directions. 


Unity  a7id  Gcmiinencss  of  Deitteronomy.  273 

hundred  octavo  pages  on  its  less  than  thirty  verses, 
reaches  the  conclusion  that  there  is  nothin":  in  the 
poem  itself  to  justify  the  calling  in  question  the 
correctness  of  its  title.^ 

These,  now,  are  the  anachronisms,  contradictions, 
geographical  and  ethnographical  remarks  which,  as  far 
as  the  historical  portions  of  Deuteronomy  are  con- 
cerned, have  been  so  much  magnified  by  recent  critics 
as  furnishing  positive  evidence  of  the  post-Mosaic 
origin  of  the  book.  I  am  not  aware  that  there  are 
others  of  any  significance.  How  far  from  overpowering 
in  quantity  do  they  appear  beside  the  thirty  chapters 
of  solid  matter  in  the  midst  of  which  they  stand  !  And 
in  quality  they  are  even  more  disappointing. 

They  are  admitted  to  be  exceptions  to  the  ruling 
form  of  the  book ;  but  they  do  not  give  the  response 
to  adequate  tests  which  they  have  been  said  to  give  and 
been  counted  on  to  give.  We  fail  to  find  in  one  of 
them  any  indications,  open  or  covert,  that  the  book  of 
which  they  form  a  part  is  the  product  of  Hezekiah's 
reforms  or  Hilkiah's  finesse.  Most  of  them  are  but 
loosely  attached  to  the  text  at  best.  If  they  were 
taken  bodily  out  of  it,  the  book  would  be  still  left 
complete  in  all  its  essential  features.  Let  them  be 
looked  upon  either  as  instances  where  the  writer  forgot 
himself  and  unconsciously  assumed  his  real  character, 
—  a  supposition  totally  out  of  harmony  with  their 
nature, — or  as  later  editorial  supplements  and  super- 
fluities, there  is  nothing  in  either  case  to  justify  the 
enormous  conclusions  that  have  been  drawn  from  them. 
They  are  quite  of  the  same  stock  as  the  body  of  the 
book.  The  writer  or  writers  of  them  move  in  the  same 
circle  of    ideas  that  rule  throughout,  wear  the  rough 

'  Der  Segen  Mose's  Untersucht  und  Ausgclcgt.     Cf.  pp.  154-160. 


2/4       T^he  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

garments  of  the  Israelitish  wanderers,  speak  the 
dialect  of  the  recent  slaves  of  Egypt. 

Whatever,  in  short,  any  supposed  later  writer  or 
compiler  may  be  thought  to  have  overlooked  in  the 
form  of  the  book  to  make  it  appear  outwardly  other 
than  Mosaic  gives  no  shred  of  encouragement  to  the 
theory  that  it  belongs  to  a  later  age,  after  Joshua,  after 
Samuel,  after  David,  after  the  earthquake  throes  that 
divided  the  kingdom,  after  the  reforms  of  an  Asa  or 
the  pestilential  wickedness  of  an  Ahaz  or  a  Manasseh. 
The  positive  evidence,  as  far  as  any  exists,  points 
uniformly  in  one  direction  ;  and  the  negative  evidence, 
if  so  it  may  be  called,  does  not  disprove,  but  con- 
firms, it. 

Suppose  the  book  were  a  composition  of  the  royal 
period,  as  it  has  become  largely  the  mode  to  affirm,  or 
a  mosaic  out  of  different  periods,  none  of  them  as  early 
as  David,  and  that  the  ecclesiastical  enthusiast  who 
wrote  it  or  edited  it  actually  sometimes  forgot  his  role, 
as  it  has  been  asserted  the  Deuteronomist  has  done. 
Would  he  have  left  the  traces  of  it  that  we  find  in  our 
work  .''  What  strange  threads  of  history  rather,  what 
bits  of  experience  unknown  to  the  beginnings  of 
national  life,  what  reminiscences  of  sacred  places,  what 
possible  and  every  way  probable  coloring  of  sentiment, 
like  that  which  makes  the  Psalter  a  mirror  of  Israel's 
inner  being,  might  have  been  confidently  expected  in 
place  of  the  limited  range  and  uniform  tenor  of  the 
matter  we  actually  find  .''  ^ 

'  "  Vast  changes  took  place  in  Israel  during  the  eight  centuries  which  preceded  the 
supposed  forgery.  A  fugitive  host  of  foemen  entered  and  conquered  Palestine,  divided 
the  country  among  them,  and  then  for  four  centuries  fought  for  existence  as  separate 
warring  tribes.  From  being  a  republic,  Israel  became  a  limited  monarchy.  Kings  took 
the  place  of  judges,  and  one  of  them  made  the  Hebrew  State  the  first  empire  of  his  age. 
Under  another,  the  kingdom  so  painfully  raised  to  greatness  was  split  in  two,  weakened 
by  civil  strife,  and  preyed  on  by  powerful  neighbors.     At  last  the  larger  of  the  two  frag- 


Unity  and  GcK::inciu\':s  of  Daiterononty.  275 

Let  us  select,  for  example,  a  single  prominent 
feature  of  Deuteronomy.  If  it  have  one,  it  is  the 
emphasis  it  lays  on  the  place  of  worship  for  Israel  — 
that  it  is  to  be  ojie,  the  one  which  the  Lord  their  God 
should  choose  for  them.  Nearly  twenty  times  within 
the  space  of  a  few  chapters  this  matter  is  insisted  on, 
without  deviation  in  form  or  relaxation  from  its  iron 
firmness  of  command.  "  Unto  the  place  which  the 
Lord  your  God  shall  choose  out  of  all  your  tribes  to 
put  his  name  there,  unto  his  habitation  shall  ye  seek, 
and  thither  shalt  thou  come  "  (xii.  5). 

The  cultus  of  God  was  to  be  confined  to  a  central 
shrine.  The  idolatrous  and  deadly  worship  on  the 
"heights"  was  to  be  relentlessly  rooted  out.  The 
writer,  it  is  claimed  now,  had  his  eye  on  Jerusalem. 
He  must  have  had,  if  he  were  Hilkiah  or  any  prot^g^ 
of  Hezekiah.  Not  only  was  his  eye  upon  it,  but  his 
heart  was  full  of  it,  and  a  leading  purpose  of  his  work 
was  to  discourage  worship  at  any  other  point ;  nay,  to 
brand  it  as  a  positive  transgression  of  a  reiterated  law 
of  Jehovah  by  the  mouth  of  his  greatest  legislator. 
And  yet  he  never  gets  beyond  this  form  of  words  : 
"unto  the  place  which  the  Lord  your  God  shall  choose 
out  of  all  your  tribes."  He  uses  it  with  the  history  of 
the  Israelitish  cultus  for  more  than  half  a  millennium 
before  him. 

He  knew  of  the  sad  degeneracy  of  the  times  next 
succeeding  Joshua  ;  of  the  falseness  of  Eli's  anointed 
sons  ;  of  Samuel's  heroic  breasting  of  an  evil  tide  ;  the 

merits,  after  losing  towns  and  provinces  to  Damascus,  Moab,  and  Ammon,  was  itself 
repeatedly  wasted,  and  then  overwhelmed  by  the  power  of  Assyria.  Literature  was  cul- 
tivated among  the  Helirews  during  these  eight  centuries.  Changes,  very  striking  to  the 
imagination,  took  place  in  their  worship  and  in  their  art  of  war.  But  of  all  these  things 
there  is  not  one  word  or  one  hint  in  Deuteronomy.  If  it  be  a  true  history,  it  could  not 
contain  references  to  them.  If  it  be  a  forgery,  no  man  could  have  written  it  without  in 
some  way  or  another  showing  his  hand."  —  Sime,  ibid.  pp.  415,  416. 


276        TJie  PentatnicJi :  Its  Origin  and  Strnctuir. 

full  story  of  the  ark  in  its  wanderings  from  Gilgal  to 
Shiloh  and  from  Shiloh  to  Kirjath-jearim,  its  honors 
and  its  neglect,  until  David  brought  it,  with  psalms  of 
rejoicing,  to  its  present  place  on  Mount  Zion.  He 
knew  of  the  temple  of  Solomon  and  its  memorable 
dedication  in  the  presence  of  a  united  and  happy 
people.  He  knew  — •  the  writer  of  a  Deuteronomy  of 
the  seventh  century  must  have  known  —  of  the  civil 
conflicts  that  succeeded  Solomon's  reign  ;  of  the  divisive 
efforts  of  a  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat ;  of  the  high- 
handed idolatry  at  Bethel  and  Beersheba ;  of  the  luxu- 
rious Samaria  of  Jereboam  II.  ;  of  Asa's  reforms,  and 
Elijah's  challenge  to  Baal's  priests,  and  Jezebel's 
cruelty,  and  the  heathenish  Syrian  altar  of  Ahaz  in  the 
temple  court.  And  knowing  it,  we  can  judge  from  the 
spirit  that  rules  in  his  work  what  he  thought  about  it 
all — how  keenly  sensitive  it  made  him  to  the  desperate 
woes  of  his  countrymen  and  the  dishonor  to  his  God. 
And  still  it  is  claimed  that  he  wrote  so  repeatedly  and 
so  tamely  :  "  unto  the  place  which  the  Lord  your  God 
shall  choose  out  of  all  your  tribes  .  .  .  shall  ye  seek." 
It  is  neither  the  sentiment  nor  the  form  of  sentiment 
that  we  might  have  expected  in  view  of  such  a  history. 
It  is  quite  too  general  and  too  lax.  The  evil  Jeroboam 
might  have  claimed  it  as  meaning  his  altar,  as  well  as 
the  good  Jehosaphat.  It  is  conceived  in  far  too  calm 
and  too  colorless  a  spirit.  It  implies  a  unity  where 
there  is  already  hot  dissension  and  every  sign  of  wild 
anarchy  for  the  time  to  come.  It  is  psychologically 
impossible,  in  short,  that  a  man  in  the  midst  of  the 
antagonisms  of  the  later  day,  given  a  priest  or  prophet 
of  whatever  unparalleled  nerve  or  adroitness,  could 
have  expressed  himself  in  the  manner  the  writer  of 
Deuteronomy  has  done  on  the  subject  of  divine 
worship. 


Unity  and  Genuineness  of  Deuterono'iny.  277 

Moreover,  let  it  be  remembered  that,  according  to 
the  theory,  the  book  is  to  no  slight  extent  an  invention. 
The  writer  was  bound  to  no  method,  was  at  liberty  to 
manipulate  material  or  manufacture  it  to  suit  his  pur- 
pose. Why,  then,  is  there  nowhere  a  hint  of  such  a 
place  as  Jerusalem,  much  less  of  its  already  historic 
sanctuary  }  His  chief  object,  it  is  alleged,  was  to  give 
the  temple  cultus  the  advantage  of  the  oldest  and  the 
highest  authority.  How  is  it  conceivable,  in  these  cir- 
cumstances, that  he  should  not  only  use  so  equivocal 
an  expression  as  "  the  place  which  the  Lord  your  God 
shall  choose,"  but  keep  the  precise  place  he  meant,  the 
cynosure  of  mind  and  heart,  so  completely  out  of  view .-' 

More  than  this,  his  representations  are  misleading, 
on  any  such  hypothesis,  and  Jerusalem  is  the  last  place 
that  would  be  thought  of.  One  would  rather  think  of 
Jericho,  where  the  first  great  victory  in  the  promised 
land  was  won  ;  or  Mount  Nebo,  where  the  "  man  of 
God  "  was  buried,  distant  and  inaccessible  though  it 
might  have  been  regarded  at  any  time  after  the  division 
of  Canaan  ;  above  all,  of  Mounts  Ebal  and  Gerizim, 
now  within  the  domain  of  the  dreaded  Sargon,  who  had 
captured  Samaria.  These  mountains  occupied  the 
geographical  centre  of  the  land.  The  region  had  long 
before  been  honored  in  patriarchal,  as  it  has  long  since 
in  Christian,  story.  It  is  also  represented  as  about  to 
be  the  scene  of  a  public  celebration  and  attestation  of 
this  very  Deuteronomic  code,  otherwise  unexampled  in 
the  annals  of  the  people.  I  submit  that,  if  the  writer 
of  this  so-called  Fifth  Book  of  Moses  had  Mount  Zion 
in  his  secret  thought,  he  would  never  have  so  hallowed 
and  glorified  the  mountains  Ebal  and  Gerizim,  and 
made  them  as  conspicuous  in  his  work  as  they  are  in 
the  landscape  of    the   Holy  Land.     It    would  prove  a 


2/8       The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Ongm  and  Structure. 

clumsiness  of   literary  execution    with    which    so    deft 
a  hand  cannot  be   charged. 

In  this  connection,  too,  attention  should  be  called  to 
another  quite  as  serious  oversight  of  our  critics  in  their 
hunt  for  evidence  of  the  late  origin  of  Deuteronomy. 
It  is  the  freshness  and  the  peculiar  character  of  its 
Egyptian  reminiscences,  together  with  the  entire 
absence  of  allusion,  near  or  remote,  to  the  Assyrian 
power.  It  might,  indeed,  be  said  to  be  designed  —  the 
chosen  covering  under  which  a  clever  hand  wrought  to 
accomplish  the  highest  moral  ends.  But  if  it  be  a 
covering,  it  is  one  which  a  really  clever  hand  would 
not  at  all  have  needed  and  which  a  devout  hand  would 
never  have  chosen  or  allowed.  It  is  obvious  here,  too, 
that  there  are  psychological  grounds,  reasons  existing  in 
the  nature  of  things,  making  the  authorship  of  such  a 
work  after  the  recovery  of  Assyria  (b.c.  900)  and  the 
accession  of  Shalmaneser  II.  (b.c.  858)  wholly  incom- 
prehensible. 

If  it  be  difficult  to  conceive  of  a  writer  under  the 
shadow  of  the  temple,  and  for  the  sake  of  it,  ignoring 
Jerusalem  while  making  prominent  Ebal  and  its  altar, 
it  is  no  less  so  to  think  of  one  making  everything  of 
Egypt,  when,  were  he  a  real  son  of  his  time,  in  sym- 
pathy with  what  Hebrew  poets  and  seers  are  saying,  he 
should  be  making  everything  of  Assyria;  at  least, 
should  find  it  impossible  to  be  so  completely  oblivious 
of  the  empire  before  which  Micah  saw  Zion  "  ploughed 
as  a  field,"  Jerusalem  "become  heaps,"  and  the  "moun- 
tain of  the  house  as  the  heights  of  the  wood"  (iii.  12). 

Egypt  was  politically  a  nonentity  in  the  period 
between  the  middle  of  the  tenth  and  the  close  of  the 
eighth  century  e.g.  Sunk  in  corruptions,  it  fell  an  easy 
prey  to  the  hordes  of  the  Ethiopian  conqueror  Shabak, 


Unity  and  Gennineness  of  Deuteronomy.  279 

the  So  of  the  biblical  books  (2  Kings  xix.  9 ;  cf.  Isa. 
xxxvii.  9).  Under  Psammetichus  I.,  in  the  seventh 
century  (b.c.  664),  it  reached  again  a  moderate  pitch  of 
commercial  prosperity,  but  never  regained  its  former 
military  strength.  In  fact,  after  the  time  of  Rehoboam 
the  successor  of  Solomon,  when  Shishak  successfully 
besieged  Jerusalem  (i  Kings  xiv.  25),  the  kingdoms  of 
Judah  and  Israel  had  as  little  to  hope  as  to  fear  from 
the  once  formidable  neighbor  of  the  south.  Sentinels 
on  their  watchtowers  were  facing  in  quite  another 
direction. 

It  is  the  Egypt  of  Sethos  I.,  Rameses  I.  and  II.,  and 
of  Menephthes  that  has  left  its  indelible  impression  on 
the  Pentateuch.  The  nearly  twoscore  references  to  it 
by  name  in  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  alone  are  of  un- 
mistakable significance.  In  eleven  only  of  the  thirty- 
four  chapters  do  we  fail  to  find  them.  They  abound 
equally  in  every  part  —  laws  as  well  as  history.  More 
than  half  the  references  are  to  Israel's  deliverance  and 
the  signal  manner  of  it.  The  next  largest  number  are 
to  the  wonders  wrought  upon  Pharaoh.  Others  are  to 
the  fact  of  the  hard  servitude,  the  homelessness,  and 
the  oppression  of  Israel.  Four  make  mention  of  what 
kind  of  a  land  Egypt  had  been  found,  its  evil  diseases, 
and  its  methods  of  agriculture. 

Could  anything,  for  example,  be  more  true  to  nature 
or  more  picturesque  than  this  :  "  For  the  land  of  which 
thou  goest  to  take  possession  is  not  like  the  land  of 
Egypt,  whence  ye  are  come  out,  where  thou  sowedst  thy 
seed,  and  wateredst  it  with  thy  foot  as  a  garden  of 
herbs "  (xi.  10)  }  Two  passages  make  tender  allusion 
to  the  circumstances  that  attended  the  going  of  Jacob 
into  Egypt,  and  two  contain  terrifying  ones  to  a  possible 
future  thraldom  there.     How  abundant  this  testimony, 


28o       The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Orio-in  a? id  Structure. 


c> ' 


and  how  inexplicable  on  the  supposition  that  our  book 
was  written  at  any  time  between  the  reign  of  Jeroboam, 
the  son  of  Nebat,  and  the  reforms  of  King  Josiah  ? 
Moreover,  it  is  of  one  uniform  character.  Selected  out, 
a  shred  here  and  a  shred  there,  from  the  entire  web, 
there  is  no  dissimilarity  of  color  or  texture.  It  is  a 
Shemitic  fabric,  woven  thick  with  threads  of  Egyptian 
memories. 

Suppose  that  this  book,  now,  or  any  considerable  part 
of  it,  had  been  written  at  the  time  when  Hczekiah 
took  away  the  high  places  with  their  altars  and  com- 
manded that  worship  should  be  paid  at  one  altar  (2 
Chron.  xxxii.  12),  or  when  the  more  marked  reforms 
that  synchronize  with  the  beginning  of  Jeremiah's 
prophecies  were  begun.  Not  only  would  such  inci- 
dental references  to  Egypt,  in  their  numerousness  and 
in  their  coloring  of  bygone  days,  surprise  and  baffle 
us,  but,  as  we  have  said,  not  less  the  seeming  utter 
obliviousness  of  the  empire  of  the  North.  The  monu- 
ments fully  confirm  what  the  biblical  books  had  long 
ago  more  than  led  us  to  infer,  that  for  the  children 
of  Israel  in  Palestine,  at  least  after  the  beginning  of 
the  tenth  century,  the  antagonistic  world-empire  lay 
no  longer  on  the  Nile,  but  on  the  Tigris  and  the 
Euphrates. 

There  is  scarcely  a  king  from  Ahab  down  who  did 
not  find  himself  harassed  with  problems  that  concerned 
Assyria  or  its  no  less  mighty  successor  at  Babylon. 
Whatever  reforms  of  the  cultus  or  the  civil  polity  were 
called  for  in  all  this  period  we  may  be  sure  got  some- 
what of  their  motive  from  the  hope  that  thus  a  suc- 
cessful barrier  might  be  raised  against  this  dreaded 
despotism.  Jehu's  ambassadors  bearing  gifts  figure 
on  the  marble  obelisks  of  Shalmanezer  (b.c.  810-781). 


Unity  and  Gciuiiiicticss  of  Deuteronomy.  281 

Uzziah  was  punished  and  fined  by  Tiglath  Pileser  II. 
(B.C.  723)  for  his  temerity  in  joining  the  Syrians  against 
him.  Ahaz,  at  first  an  ally,  afterward  became  an 
obsequious  slave  of  the  same  power. 

Samaria  was  reduced  and  its  king  and  people  led 
away  to  exile  (b.c.  722).  Hezekiah,  like  his  father,  paid 
the  hated  tax  which  purchased  him  immunity  from 
worse  inflictions.  Next  to  the  escape  from  Egypt 
there  was,  perhaps,  no  event  that  made  a  deeper 
impression  on  the  Hebrew  mind  and  literature  than 
the  precipitous  retreat  of  Sennacherib,  in  this  same 
king's  reign,  mysteriously  smitten  by  the  Providence 
he  had  defied.  So,  too,  Esar-haddon  (b.c.  670),  Assurb- 
anipal  (b.c.  688),  and  Esar-haddon  II.,  whose  reigns 
reach  to  the  utmost  limit  of  the  period  that  by  the 
wildest  criticism  could  be  assigned  to  the  essential 
portions  of  Deuteronomy,  were  all  of  them  more  or  less 
concerned  with  the  now  broken  and  scattered  Israel 
and  the  ever-waning  political  fortunes  of  Judah  and 
Jerusalem.  In  the  meantime  Tyre  and  Sidon,  Phoe- 
nicia, Philistia,  and  Edom  had  been  successively  sub- 
jugated, the  whole  of  the  Nile  region  overrun  ;  and  the 
lordly  potentate  of  the  North  added  to  his  other  titles, 
"king  of  the  kings  of  Egypt  and  Cush." 

What  vestige  of  all  this  do  we  find  in  Deuteronomy  .-* 
What  one  word  of  Assyria  and  its  influence  to  offset 
the  nearly  forty  references  to  the  Egypt  of  Joseph  and 
Moses  and  the  exodus.?  Judging  from  the  confidence 
with  which  our  book  is  assigned  to  this  or  that  era  of 
reform  among  the  kings  of  the  Assyrian  period,  one 
m'.ght  reasonably  expect  some  definite  evidence  that  it 
knew  of  these  mighty  monarchs  and  their  overwhelming 
influence  on  the  people  of  Palestine  and  adjacent  lands 
—  that  the  Assyria  of  the  prophets  and  historical  books 


282       The  PentateucJi :    Its  Orisrin  ajid  Structure, 


t> ' 


really  came  into  its  field  of  vision.  There  is  no  such 
evidence. 

There  is  a  single  allusion,  at  the  close  of  the  Deuter- 
onomic  legislation  (Deut.  xxvi.  5),  to  the  Shemitic  origin 
of  Israel,  sufficient  to  show  that  the  author  was  not 
blind  in  one  eye,  that  the  country  that  had  been  the 
early  home  of  his  people  was  not  a  total  blank  in  his 
mind ;  but  in  other  respects  it  is  of  a  nature  to  show 
that  he  was  wholly  ignorant  of  the  sweeping  changes 
that  between  the  period  of  the  exodus  and  the  fall  of 
Samaria  had  there  occurred  :  "  A  Syrian  ready  to  perish 
was  my  father,  and  he  went  down  into  Egypt  and 
sojourned  there  with  a  few."  How  differently  must  he 
have  sj^oken  if  his  vision  had  been  filled  with  the  scenes 
that  floated  before  the  prophetic  eye  of  an  Hosea  or 
Isaiah ! 

The  human  mind,  indeed,  is  capable  of  abstracting 
itself  from  its  surroundings.  Rapt  enthusiasts  in 
science  or  art  have  sometimes  been  known  to  pursue 
apparently  undisturbed  the  objects  of  their  devotion, 
while  sword  and  flame  were  wasting  about  them.  But 
such  a  man  the  tender  and  sympathetic  writer  of  Deu- 
teronomy was  not.  The  highest  patriotism  burns  in  his 
every  utterance.  His  country's  illumined  history,  her 
divinely  sanctioned  laws,  her  past,  and  still  more 
inviting  future,  —  these  are  his  undeviating  theme. 
The  book  before  us,  in  short,  as  the  product  of  a 
patriotic  Jewish  pen  in  the  midst  of  the  political 
convulsions  of  the  Assyrian  period  would  be  a  literary 
fnonstrimt,  a  psychological  contradiction.  The  elements 
are  wanting  that  could  have  produced  it ;  the  elements 
are  present  that,  as  surely  as  the  action  of  chemical 
contrarieties,  would  have  made  it  impossible. 

And  this  leads,  in  conclusion  to  some  reflections  on 


Unity  and  Genuineness  of  Deuteronomy.  283 

the  spirit  that  rules  in  Deuteronomy  and  other  out- 
standing,  characteristic  moral  features  that  are  as 
universal  as  they  are  apparently  undesigned.  There 
is  nothing  that  witnesses  more  directly  or  cogently  to 
its  genuineness  ;  they  precisely  fit  the  theory  of  Mosaic 
origin ;  they  are  practically  inexplicable  on  any  other. 

At  the  outset,  it  is  noticeable  that  the  spirit  of  our 
book  is  at  the  farthest  remove  from  one  of  reserve.  It 
is  as  ingenuous  and  open  as  the  day.  It  moves 
unembarrassed  and  with  an  appearance  of  the  greatest 
familiarity  amongst  the  grandest  factors  and  forces  of 
the  early  Israelitish  history.  It  follows  no  beaten  track. 
It  knows  the  story  of  Exodus  and  Numbers ;  but  it  is 
independent  of  it,  shaping  the  rich  material  in  a  way 
peculiar  to  itself.  It  puts  its  hand  upon  the  sacred 
code  of  Sinai,  even  that  central  portion  and  glory  of  it 
which  was  written  in  stone  by  the  finger  of  God, 
assuming  the  right  and  claiming  the  prerogative  of 
giving  it  an  altered  form. 

A  bold  si^irit  he  must  be  acknowledged  to  be.  If  he 
were  not  Moses,  he  could  not  have  acted  with  more 
supremacy  of  knowledge  or  apparent  consciousness  of 
authority  if  it  had  been  he.  Things  are  taken  for 
granted  which  a  romancer  would  have  been  careful  to 
fortify  with  arguments.  Statements  are  volunteered 
which  prudence  would  have  led  him  to  keep  back. 
Matters  are  passed  over  in  silence  which  a  secret 
an.xiety  must  have  led  him  to  divulge  and  expatiate 
upon.  Infinitely  touching  things  are  said,  and  in  a 
manner  that  is  no  less  touching.  Solemn  judgments, 
promises  of  unheard-of  good  are  uttered  in  the  character 
of  one  who  spoke  from  God  and  with  God. 

Prophets  there  were  many  in  Israel.  If  this  repre- 
sentation be  correct,  here  was  the  prophet  of  the  old 


284       The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

economy.  Others  saw  visions  and  dreamed  dreams ; 
he  spoke  face  to  face  with  God  and  was  deemed  worthy 
of  honors  never  claimed  for  an  Amos  or  an  Isaiah". 
Somebody  adds,  in  the  closing  section  of  the  book  : 
"  There  arose  not  a  prophet  since  in  Israel  like  unto 
Moses."  On  its  face  it  is  a  later  addition,  like  the  rest 
of  the  chapter.  But  it  is  the  "amen"  that  confirms 
the  letter  of  the  history  or  the  self-praise  that  seals 
the  counterfeit. 

The  countenance  of  Moses,  it  is  said,  shone  with  the 
radiance  of  the  divine  presence.  He  had  great  priv- 
ileges ;  but  he  had  also  great  responsibilities  and  trying 
ordeals.  Heaven  honored  his  intercessions  with  signal 
deliverances ;  but  heaven  punished  his  sin  with  a  visi- 
tation so  severe  that  nothing  could  better  serve  to 
magnify  the  law  and  make  it  honorable.  The  promised 
land  he  might  not  set  his  foot  upon  ;  and  yet  God  com- 
forted him  and  God  buried  him.  A  paradox  truly,  but 
only  on  the  hypothesis  of  unreality.  Without  an  army, 
without  the  restraints  of  established  customs  and  regular 
occupations,  by  the  sheer  force  of  his  goodness,  his 
disinterestedness,  his  supreme  patience,  and  the  favor 
of  God,  he  led,  as  a  father,  for  forty  years,  the  most 
intractable  and  obstinate  of  peoples.  The  intrigues  of 
his  own  family  neither  disheartened  nor  angered  him. 

Alive  as  few  others  to  the  demands  of  even-handed 
justice,  having  for  his  great  task  the  training  of  a  people 
in  the  arts  of  war  as  well  as  of  peace  in  a  rude  age,  it  is 
still  the  law  of  love  to  God  as  a  rule  of  conduct  on  which 
he  everywhere  chiefly  insists.  Five  several  times  he 
returns  to  it  (Deut.  vi.  4  f.  ;  x.  1 2  ;  xi.  13;  xxx.  6,  20) 
with  emphatic  reiteration  ;  and  the  aged  John,  who  of 
all  the  apostles  perhaps  drank  in  most  of  the  spirit  of 
the  gospel,  but  echoes  in  his  farewell  letter  the  farewell 


Unity  a7id  Genuineness  of  Deuteronomy.         285 

message  of  the  great  lawgiver  of  the  wilderness :  "  He 
that  dwelleth  in  love  dwelleth  in  God,  and  God  in  him  " 
(i  John  iv,  16).  Strangers,  widows,  and  the  fatherless 
were  his  especial  charge  (x.  18;  xiv.  29;  xvi.  11;  xxiv. 
17,  19;  xxvi.  12),  another  Israel  within  Israel. 

Recognizing  that  higher  truth  of  Paul,  that  the 
written  law  is  not  made  for  a  righteous  man  (i  Tim. 
i.  9),  his  point  of  view  throughout  is  superior  to  the 
code  he  so  rigorously  lays  down.  He  commands,  for 
example,  that  the  poor  brother  shall  be  relieved. 
"Thou  shalt  not  harden  thy  heart,  nor  shut  thy  hand," 
he  says,  "from  thy  poor  brother."  But  beyond  this 
point,  where  mere  human  law  must  stop  short,  he  goes 
on  to  say :  "  And  thy  heart  shall  not  be  grieved  when 
thou  givest  unto  him "  (Deut.  xv.  10),  He  enjoins 
upon  masters  that  they  load  their  departing  slaves  with 
gifts  and  rewards  :  "  Thou  shalt  furnish  him  liberally 
out  of  thy  flock  and  out  of  thy  floor  and  out  of  thy 
wine-press."  But  it  is  no  injunction,  it  is  a  moving 
entreaty,  when  he  adds  :  "  It  shall  not  seem  hard  unto 
thee  when  thou  sendest  him  away  free  from  thee  " 
(Deut.  XV.   10,   18). 

If  this  be  invention,  the  inventor  meant  that  it  should 
be  received  as  fact,  as  indeed  it  was,  and  ever  gratefully 
has  been.  It  is  that  alone  which  has  given  the  book  all 
the  authority  and  all  the  power  for  good  it  has  ever  had. 
But  if  it  be  invention,  the  effrontery  and  real  falseness 
of  the  invention  is  only  equaled  by  its  spiritual  beauty 
and  ideal  truth.  If  it  be  invention,  the  discovery  to  the 
world  of  the  mysterious  inventor,  who  combined  within 
himself  qualities  so  exceptionally  excellent  with  those 
so  exceptionally  otherwise,  might  be  some  compensation 
for  the  loss  from  sacred  history  of  such  a  character  and 
career  as  that  of  the  Moses  of  the  exodus. 


286       The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  mid  Structure. 

The  Book  of  Deuteronomy  is  distinctly  based  on  the 
presumption  that  the  man  whom  it  makes  its  hero  has 
an  important  history  behind  him.  It  everywhere 
impHes,  in  fact,  something  answering  to  what  we 
learn  of  Moses  in  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Without  this  previous  history  the  representation  of  him 
is  not  simply  a  torso,  it  is  the  barest  fragment  of  a  full- 
sized  figure.  The  period  that  the  narrative  covers  is 
only  the  few  hurried  days  preceding  the  passage  of  the 
Jordan.  Moses  appears  upon  the  scene  as  already  an 
old  man  whose  work  is  virtually  over.  He  wears, 
indeed,  accustomed  honors ;  exercises  still,  with  un- 
diminished zeal,  a  shepherd's  care  for  his  people ;  but 
we  are  never  suffered  to  forget  that  we  are  listening  to 
parting  words  and  looking  upon  one  of  the  most  solemn 
of  farewells. 

The  book  opens  with  a  significant  reference  to  the 
fortieth  year,  expecting  the  reader,  without  explanation, 
to  understand  what  is  meant  by  it.  The  entire  matter, 
unlike  that  of  any  other  book  of  the  five,  is  of  a  purely 
subjective  cast.  The  ecclesiastical  and  theocratical 
nomenclature  of  Leviticus  and  Numbers  has  disappeared 
along  with  the  topics  on  which  it  was  employed.  It  is 
the  people  who  are  addressed,  and  on  civil  and  social 
themes ;  but  a  people  called  of  God,  and  all  whose 
institutions  are  to  be  fashioned  with  chief  reference  to 
his  claim.  Ethical  precepts  are  those  chiefly  empha- 
sized. The  Lord  their  God  is  God  of  gods  and  Lord 
of  lords,  a  great  God,  a  mighty  and  a  terrible,  who 
regardeth  not  persons  nor  taketh  reward.  He  executeth 
judgment  for  the  fatherless  and  widow,  and  loveth  the 
stranger,  giving  him  food  and  raiment  (x.  17,  18). 

The  ten  commandments  furnish  the  keynote  and 
gtarting-point    of  all    the    Deuteronomic  laws.      Their 


Unity  and  Gemdneness  of  Detiteronoiny.  287 

affinity  is  naturally  with  the  Sinaitic  code,  rather  than 
with  the  priestly  regulations  of  the  middle  books.  Of 
both  Moses  professes  to  have  been  the  mediator  (iv.  5, 
10).  He  is  apparently  not  insensible  to  the  difficulties 
that  such  a  claim  involves,  and  is  equally  ready  to 
confess  his  limitations,  infirmities,  and  sins.  He  does 
not  hesitate  to  set  in  the  boldest  relief  the  miraculous 
nature  of  Jehovah's  dealings  with  his  covenant  people. 
"Did  ever  a  people,"  he  asks,  "hear  the  voice  of  God 
speaking  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire,  as  thou  hast 
heard,  and  live  } "  But  he  hesitates  just  as  little,  with 
all  his  brooding  tenderness  of  feeling,  to  charge  that 
favored  people  to  their  faces  with  rebellion,  with  weak 
defection  and  despicable  cowardice,  with  stiff -neckedness 
and  hard-heartedness  since  he  had  known  them  ( i.  26, 
31,  43  ;  vi.  16;  ix.  6,  22,  24).  Not  for  their  sakes,  but 
for  the  fathers'  sakes  were  they  chosen  (x.  15),  and  in 
all  that  "great  and  terrible  wilderness"  had  there  been 
folded  about  them  the  everlasting  arms. 

Would  such  sentiments  have  been  calculated  to 
recommend  a  book  calling  for  the  sweeping  reforms  of 
this  to  men  of  the  later  day  }  The  sudden  lapse  from 
efforts  at  betterment  when  the  outward  pressure  ceased 
shows  in  the  midst  of  what  a  fearful  current  of  opposi- 
tion the  revivals  of  Hezekiah  and  Josiah  had  been 
begun. 

Lessons  from  the  past  alternate  throughout  with 
solemn  admonitions  for  the  future.  The  Bible  fur- 
nishes few  examples  of  warnings  which  in  melting 
pathos  or  awful  power  equal  those  of  this  book  (cf. 
xxviii.).  It  does  not  surprise  us  that  the  rabbins  of  a 
later  day  named  it  the  "Book  of  Admonitions."  The 
possibility  and  fear,  rising  in  some  places  to  prophetic 
conviction,  that  the  Israel  of  Red  Sea  deliverances  and 


288        TJie  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

of  Sinai  would  yet  one  day  lapse  from  its  high  privilege, 
and  lose  sight  for  a  time  of  its  predestined  goal,  domi- 
nate like  a  trumpet-tone  beginning,  middle,  and  end  of 
this  series  of  discourses.  It  is  for  this  reason,  among 
others,  that  the  fourteen  chai^ters  of  legislation,  whose 
faithful  observance  was  meant  to  prevent  the  day  of 
calamity,  are  flanked  by  Ebal  and  Gerizim.  That 
imposing  ceremonial  should  be  forever  afterward  a 
solemn  and  restraining  memory  (xi.  29 ;  xxvii.). 

For  this  reason,  too,  the  heroic  leader  desires  to  be 
with  his  people  as  long  as  possible.  How  much  of  the 
Book  of  Deuteronomy  might  have  been  unknown  to  us, 
or  have  appeared  in  quite  another  form,  had  he  been 
able  to  complete  in  person  the  conquests  of  which 
the  forty  years  of  seemingly  aimless  wanderings  and 
his  sin  had  robbed  him  !  His  wish  in  the  matter  he 
makes  no  effort  to  conceal.  Again  and  again  he  speaks 
of  it  in  words  that  tremble  with  suppressed  emotion. 
It  had  been  made  the  subject  of  earnest  petition  (vii. 
23-29).  "  I  must  die,"  he  says,  "  in  this  land.  I  may 
not  go  over  Jordan.  But  ye  will  go  over  to  possess 
that  good  land  "  {iv.  22). 

Moreover,  there  is  but  one  sole  reason  given  for  the 
deprivation.  The  Lord  was  angry  with  him  because  he 
had  failed  to  be  as  patient  with  them,  his  people,  as  he 
might  have  been  (iv.  21).  At  the  close  of  the  book  the 
subject  is  introduced  in  connection  with  Moses'  age 
and  infirmities :  "  He  said  unto  them,  I  am  a  hundred 
and  twenty  years  old  this  day.  I  can  no  more  go  out 
and  come  in.  Also  the  Lord  hath  said  unto  me.  Thou 
shalt  not  go  over  this  Jordan." 

How  rare  an  opportunity  for  the  writer  of  the  book, 
if  he  had  so  desired,  to  clear  his  hero  of  the  almost 
only  stain  that  rested  on  his  great  career,   to  suggest 


Unity  and  Genuineness  of  Deuteronomy.  289 

that  it  was  physical  infirmities  that  unfitted  him  to 
brave  the  hardships  of  a  campaign  in  Canaan  !  A  few 
sKght  changes,  and  what  a  different  and,  as  it  might  be 
thought,  far  more  natural  and  worthy  conclusion  should 
we  have  had  for  this  great  man's  life !  To  die  as  Jacob 
did,  for  example,  comforted  by  the  ministry  of  loving 
hands.  Kis  faults  v/ere  venial,  compared  with  Jacob's. 
From  a  literary  point  of  view  it  was  as  unskilful  as 
from  the  point  of  view  of  ordinary  demerit  unkind  to 
make  that  one  peccadillo  of  years  gone  by  stand  out 
so  conspicuously  here  at  the  close  and  climax  of  his 
life.  But  it  is  like  the  Bible  always  to  show  its 
preference  for  candor  over  simple  literary  effect  and 
finish. 

This  is  no  romance.  We  recognize  the  force  of 
resistless  truth.  It  is  charged  with  a  spirit  before 
which  we  unhesitatingly  bow.  Every  mountain  alti- 
tude has  its  peculiar  flora  and  fauna.  It  would  be  in 
vain  to  seek  to  convince  a  botanist  that  certain  plants 
were  found  flourishing  on  the  summit  of  Mount 
Washington.  Ocular  proof  would  not  be  needful  to 
convince  him  of  the  contrary.  The  impossibility  would 
be  in  the  nature  of  things.  And  there  are  spiritual 
elevations  to  which  finesse  and  falsity  are  of  necessity 
strangers.  The  plane  on  which  the  whole  Book  of 
Deuteronomy  moves  is  one  of  these  moral  uplands.  It 
begins  with  the  sublimities  of  Sinai  and  ends  with  the 
inimitable  solemnities  of  Nebo  and  Pisgah.  It  is  no 
effort  at  historiography  interjected  with  pious  expres- 
sions, as  some  critics  ^  represent  the  later  biblical 
narratives  to  be.  It  is  in  web  and  woof  sacred  history, 
narrated,  as  it  was  enacted,  under  the  eye  of  God. 

*  Wellhausen,  Geschichie,  i.  pp.  340,  349. 


VIII. 

THE  LAW  AND  THE  PROPHETS. 


Current  problems  of  the  Biblical  criticism  of  the 
Old  Testament  have  this  peculiarity,  that  it  makes  little 
difference  where  one  begins  to  discuss  them,  he  cannot 
easily  miss  the  main  question.  Indeed,  it  is  an  obvious 
misfortune  of  this  criticism,  as  represented  by  such 
scholars  as  Graf  and  Wellhausen,  that,  instead  of  being 
able  to  concentrate  its  forces  at  any  one  point,  it  is 
obliged  to  scatter  them  along  a  line  reaching  from  the 
times  before  Moses  to  those  following  Ezra,  and  to  be 
as  fully  alert  in  one  period  as  in  another,  since  defeat 
anywhere  must  result  in  total  rout  and  overthrow. 

Nominally,  its  aim  seems  to  be  to  reconstruct  the 
Pentateuch,  or  rather  Israelitish  history,  on  the  prin- 
ciple of  a  natural  development  ;  but  this  necessitates  as 
well  a  logical  and  historical  revision  of  the  entire  Old 
Testament,  not  excepting  the  works  of  post-exilian 
writers.  It  accepts,  as  we  have  seen,  only  the  so-called 
Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  xx.— xxiii.,  xxxiv.,  with  nebu- 
lous fragments  of  history)  ^  as  the  germ  of  the  ancient 
Scriptures,  and  as  representing  down  to  the  times  of 
Josiah  (c.  B.C.  621),  even  through  the  notable  reigns 
of  David  and  Solomon,  the  aggregate  of  Israelitish 
annals  and  laws.  With  this  king  it  dates  the  Deuter- 
onomic  code,  holding  it  to  be  a  recasting  and  enlarge- 
ment of  these  same  fragments  of  Exodus  to  suit    the 

^Cf.  Wellhausen's  edition  of  Bleek's  Einleitung in  das  A.  T.,  p.  178. 


TJic  Law  and  the  Prophets.  291 

emergency  of  a  central  sanctuary,  that  is,  of  Solomon's 
temple,  and  the  tendency  expressing  itself  in  it.  The 
Levitical  legislation,  with  its  introductory  history, 
forming  the  real  body  of  the  first  four  books  of  the 
Bible,  appeared  about  two  centuries  later,  under  Ezra. 

From  this  scheme  it  will  at  once  appear  that  it  is  not 
alone  the  Pentateuch  which  is  involved.  The  historical 
books  must  furnish  a  definite  arena  of  discussion.  And 
the  prophets  before  the  exile,  who  it  is  supposed  were 
special  sources  of  the  nation's  history  and  religion,  are 
a  preeminently  important  factor  in  the  debate,  while 
the  Psalter  and  some  other  portions  of  the  Hagi- 
ography,  as  evidently  reflecting  the  spirit  and  teachings 
of  the  rest,  cannot  be  altogether  overlooked. 

In  this  paper  I  shall  direct  attention  to  but  one  prin- 
cipal feature  of  the  subject,  namely,  to  the  prophets 
who  appeared  before  the  exile ;  and  I  shall  seek  to 
answer  the  question,  whether,  in  fact,  as  is  alleged  by 
our  critics,  they  preceded  what  is  known  as  the  Leviti- 
cal code  or  followed  it ;  that  is,  whether  the  common 
order,  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  should  stand,  or 
should  be  changed  to  the  Prophets  and  the  Law.  As 
already  intimated,  the  settlement  of  this  one  question, 
in  the  nature  of  the  case,  must  be  a  virtual  settlement 
of  the  entire  discussion  in  its  present  form.  And  while 
there  are  points  where  the  line  of  our  critics'  defence 
might  perhaps  be  considered  weaker,  there  is  no  point 
where  a  successful  defence  is,  for  the  theory  they 
defend,  more  imperatively  necessary. 

The  question,  then,  is  on  the  relative  order  of  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets  ;  and  waiving  for  the  time  all 
other  related  matters,  let  it  be  determined,  if  possible, 
from  the  writings  especially  involved.  Has  the  cere- 
monial law  of    Exodus,  Numbers,  and  Leviticus,  with 


292        The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Strncture. 

its  conspicuous  setting  of  history,  left  any  such  impres- 
sion on  the  prophets  referred  to  as  might  be  expected 
if  they  had  it  before  them  ?  Or,  more  definitely,  has 
this  part  of  the  Pentateuch  left  any  discoverable 
impression  at  all  upon  these  prophets,  so  that  its 
existence  in  their  time  may  be  justly  inferred,  since 
that  would  be  quite  enough  to  prove  the  point  at  issue  ? 

In  the  meantime  we  shall  do  well  to  remember  who 
these  writers  are  whom  we  propose  to  consult  ;  that 
they  are  prophets,  and  not  priests ;  that  their  office  in 
its  essential  import,  and  as  interpreted  by  the  whole 
Israelitish  history,  called  them  to  watch  over  the  spirit 
of  the  law,  not  to  teach  and  explain  its  letter.  At  all 
times  it  was  the  substance,  not  the  form,  of  it  that  was 
the  subject  of  their  burning  utterances.^ 

Some  one  has  said  of  Milton,  and  not  altogether  in 
compliment  it  is  likely,  that  his  soul  was  like  a  star 
and  dwelt  apart.  These  men,  too,  moved  and  shone  in 
the  spiritual  heavens ;  yet  not,  like  stars,  cold  and  far 
away.  It  was  more  like  those  nearer  heavenly  bodies 
that  are  the  very  sources  of  life  and  force  to  our  little 
earth.  They  quickened  like  suns.  As  they  moved  so 
ebbed  and  flowed  the  tide  of  human  affairs  about  them. 
And  it  was  precisely  the  prophets'  spiritual  elevation 
above  the  world  that  enabled  them  to  act  to  the 
greatest  advantage  upon  the  world.  It  was  no  mere 
matter  of  individualism,  pronounced  as  that  was 
in  the  case  of  some  of  them.  Moreover,  it  was  no 
example  of  that  overvaluation  and  overrefinement  of 
the  inward  life  in  distinction   from    the    outward,   not 

•So  Marti  in  yahrbiicherfur  Protestantische  Theologie  (1880),  p.  159:  "  Sie  [die 
Propheten]  waren,  also,  diejenigen  Manner,  die  zu  wachen  hatten  Uber  die  wirksame 
Seite  des  Gottesdienstes  im  Israelitischen  Volke.  .  .  .  Sie  sind  weniger  die  Wachter  der 
Theokratie  in  ihren  cultischen  Institutionen  als  nach  ihren  sittlichen  und  moralischen 
Vorschriften."  Cf.  also  Delitzsch  in  Messiajiic  Prophecies  (Edinburgh,  1880),  pp. 
&-X3. 


TJic  Lazv  and  the  Prophets.  293 

wholly  unknown  among  ourselves  ;  that  disposition  to 
fix  the  gaze  upon  some  vague  and  hazy  possibilities  of 
the  future,  to  the  overlooking  and  the  neglect  of  that 
which  presses  for  an  answer  now. 

Above  all,  it  was  no  vulgar  appetite  for  applause  that 
impelled  them.  There  was  not  one  of  them  who  would 
not  gladly  have  hidden  himself  out  of  sight  behind  the 
work  he  did.  Several  of  them,  as  it  is,  appear  only  as 
a  name.  As  in  the  case  of  Joel :  "  The  word  of  the 
Lord  which  came  by  Joel,  the  son  of  Pethuel," —  that 
is  literally  all  that  we  know  of  the  man's  personal 
history.  No  ;  their  singularity  was  of  another  sort.  It 
was  that  of  men  who  stood  and  who  served  on  higher 
spiritual  levels.  They  refused  to  be  merged  in  the 
common  class.  They  declined  to  sink  themselves  out 
of  sight  in  any  prophetical  guild.  They  were  men  who 
could  not  be  satisfied  to  wear  a  uniform,  follow  their 
file-leaders,  be  set  in  a  row  and  counted.  They  were 
unwilling  to  yield  up  their  finer  spiritual  aspirations 
to  that  subtle  and  all-pervasive  atmosphere  of  perfunc- 
toriness  in  which  the  men  of  their  time  had  come  to 
live.  They  felt  that  somebody  must  be  singular  and 
nondescript ;  that  somebody  must  resist  the  tendency 
to  trim  and  adjust  to  a  usage  not  the  highest ;  that 
somebody  must  protest  by  word  and  deed  against  a 
stagnant,  depressing,  criminal  uniformity.  And  true  it 
is,  in  every  age,  that  it  is  only  on  the  dusty  levels  of 
mediocrity  that  men  move  in  battalions.  As  soon  as 
they  begin  to  ascend,  it  is  always  after  leaders. 

The  leading  positions  taken  by  our  critics  now  to 
prove  the  negative  of  the  question  before  us  are :  (1) 
that  the  prophets  before  the  exile  are  absolutely  silent 
respecting  the  Levitical  code,  with  the  history  that 
belongs  to  it ;  and  (2)  that  they  show  decided  hostility 


294        The  PeiitateiicJi :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

to  animal  sacrifices,  a  circumstance  bearing  still  more 
directly  against  its  supposed  existence.^  On  these  two 
abutments  the  critical  arch  at  this  point  and  its  whole 
amazing  superstructure  may  be  said  to  rest.  And  we 
have  reason  to  be  thankful  for  the  clearness  and  unmis- 
takableness  of  the  issue  thus  presented. 

That  both  these  positions  are  simply  supposititious, 
and  have  no  substantial  basis  whatever,  that  indeed 
they  are  demonstrably  false  on  any  fair  interpretation 
of  the  records,  I  think  can  be  made  to  appear  to  really 
candid  minds ;  and  even  beyond  this,  that  the  first,  if 
true,  would  prove  nothing  in  the  present  case ;  while 
the  second  can  be  supported  on  no  grounds  which 
would  not  introduce  confusion  and  absurdity  into  the 
prophetical  literature. 

Starting  with  a  minor  point,  I  remark  that,  if  it  were 
to  be  admitted  that  the  preexilian  prophets  make  no 
direct  reference  to  the  Levitical  code,  it  would  by  no 
means  follow  that  it  had  no  existence  in  their  time. 
Do  these  prophets  in  their  denunciations  of  idolatry 
ever  make  any  direct  reference  to  that  earliest  sup- 
posed fragment  of  Iraelitish  literature,  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant,  especially  to  the  second  commandment, 
holding  so  prominent  a  place  in  the  Sinaitic  legislation  } 
It  is  acknowledged  to  have  been  extant  in  this  period  ; 
it  was  recognized   as    Mosaic   and  authoritative.^     To 

'  See  Wellhausen,  Geschichte  Israels,  i.  pp.  1-5,  57-59;  W.  Robertson  Smith,  The  Old 
Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,  pp.  286-288;  and  The  Prophets  of  Israel,  pp.  164, 
173  f. ;  Duhm,  Die  Theologie  dcr  Propheten,  pp.  12,  17,  18. 

2  Soe  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,  pp.  2915,  331.  In  the  latter  passage 
this  critic  says:  "  While  the  Pentateuch  does  not  make  Mosts  the  author  of  the  Levitical 
code,  it  tells  that  he  wrote  down  certain  laws.  He  wrote  down  the  words  of  Jehovah's 
covenant  with  Israel  (E.\.  xx.\iv.  27,  28;  E.x.  xxiv.  4,  7).  In  the  former  passage  the 
words  of  the  covenant  are  expressly  identified  with  the  Ten  Words  on  the  tables  of  stone. 
In  the  latter  pa.ssage  the  same  thing  seems  to  be  meant."  This  is  sufficient  to  show 
Professor  Smith's  opinion  respecting  the  Decalogue.  When  he  proceeds  on  the  basis  of 
Ex.  xxiv.  4  to  argue  that  it  was  only  the  Decalogue  that  Moses  is  here  said  to  have 
written^  the  circumstances  under  which  these  words  were  uttered  ("  And  Moses  wrote  all 


The  Latv  and  the  Prophets,  295 

cite  its  clear  and  exceedingly  explicit  prohibition  of 
graven  images  and  of  the  service  of  false  gods, 
which  these  prophets  were  always  in  one  form  or 
another  denouncing,  one  might  suppose  would  have 
been  both  pertinent  and  effective.  In  no  case  is  it 
done.  The  precepts  of  this  code,  moreover,  were 
practically  ignored  by  the  people  down  to  the  time  of 
the  exile.  What,  then,  is  an  argument  worth  drawn 
simply  from  the  absence  of  direct  appeal  on  the  part 
of  Israelitish  prophets  to  supposed  Mosaic  institutions 
and  laws  ? 

It  is  well  to  note,  indeed,  in  passing,  into  what  a 
trying  dilemma  our  critics  are  brought  by  this  same 
Book  of  the  Covenant,  with  its  pronounced  and  clear- 
cut  enactments.  Assuming  it  to  be  the  sole  collection 
of  laws  possessed  by  the  Israelites  till  near  the  close  of 
the  seventh  century  e.g.,  they  are  not  only  compelled, 
in  direct  contravention  of  a  favorite  method  of  argu- 
mentation, to  admit  that  it  was  never  directly  appealed 
to,  and  remained  in  its  principal  features  inoperative, 
but,  to  save  their  theory  of  the  originality  of  the 
religion  of  the  j^rophets  of  this  period,  must  even  argue 
that  prophets  and  people  were  governed  by  principles 
really  antagonistic  to  it. 

These  prophets,  they  affirm,  did   not  trouble  them- 

the  words  of  the  Lord,"  etc.),  as  following  what  is  narrated  in  Ex.  xx.  18-22,  and  the  laws 
of  which  that  passage  is  the  natural  introduction,  plainly  forbid  such  a  construction. 
Indeed,  when  it  is  said,  xxiv.  3,  that  "  Moses  came  and  told  the  people  all  the  words  of  the 
Lord,  and  all  the  judgments,"  it  is  evident  on  the  face  of  it  that  "  all  the  words  "  cannot 
refer  simply  to  the  Decalogue,  and  "all  the  judgments"  to  the  laws  that  follow  it, 
xxi.-xxiii.  For  (i)  the  people  had  themselves  heard  the  Decalogue  (xx.  1,19),  and  did 
not  need  to  have  it  so  especially  rehearsed.  And  (2)  on  that  supposition  the  people 
would  be  absurdly  represented  in  xxiv.  3  as  saying  that  they  would  keep  the  Decalogue, 
while  they  decline  to  say  what  they  would  do  respecting  the  "judgments"  ("that  is,  the 
Book  of  the  Covenant,  xxi.-xxiii.).  While  (3),  at  xxiv.  7,  Moses  is  said  to  have  rend  in 
the  hearing  of  the  people  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  and  secured  their  assent  to  it  before 
ratifying  with  them,  by  the  sprinkling  of  blood,  the  Covenant  with  which  it  stood  in 
connection.  Cf.  also  Dillmann's  Commentary  on  Die  B'llcher  Exodus  und  Leviticus 
(1880),  p.  2^6. 


296       The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

selves  about  image-worship,  or  any  other  special  form 
of  cultus.  Elijah  had  no  quarrel  with  Ahab  concerning 
golden  calves,  says  Professor  Smith,  more  than  once,  in 
his  latest  work.^  In  fact,  to  avoid  the  necessity  of 
taking  account  of  the  first  and  second  commandments 
as  recognized  motives  influencing  the  minds  of  men 
during  this  period,  we  find  this  critic  resorting  to  a 
style  of  reasoning  as  utterly  trivial  as  it  is  unjustified 
by  anything  that  we  know  in  the  premises. 

Elijah,  who  could  not  have  been  ignorant  of  the 
words  written  by  the  divine  finger :  "  Thou  shalt  have 
no  other  gods  before  me ;  .  .  .  Thou  shalt  not  make 
unto  thee  any  graven  image,"  Elijah,  it  is  said,  was 
moved  to  oppose  the  worship  of  Baal  in  his  time,  among 

1  The  Prophets  of  Israel,  pp.  96,  109,  113.  Professor  Green,  in  Moses  and  the 
Prophets,  p.  265,  as  it  seems  to  me,  uses  language  none  too  strong  when  he  characterizes 
this  position  as  an  "  atrocious  misrepresentation."  "  If  there  is  any  one  thing,"  he  goes 
on  to  say,  "  of  which  Jehovah  expresses  his  utter  abhorrence  everywhere  throughout  the 
Scriptures,  it  is  the  practice  of  idolatry  in  whatever  form;  and  that  a  true  prophet  of  the 
Lord,  jealous  as  Elijah  was  for  his  name  and  worship  in  a  time  of  widespread  apostasy, 
and  to  whose  divine  commission  such  signal  attestations  were  given  by  the  Lord  himself, 
could  possibly  have  been  '  indifferent '  to  what  was  so  grossly  dishonoring  to  God,  or,  as  it 
is  mildly  put  in  the  passage  above  cited,  '  plainly  out  of  place  '  in  his  worship,  is  absolutely 
beyond  belief."  Cf.  also,  Bohl,  Ziim  Gesetz  -itnd  zjirii  Zeiigniss,  p.  71  f.  "  Und  hier 
sei  es  nun  gestattet,  ein  ernstes  Wort  mit  jenen  Krilikern  zu  reden,  welche  den  Kal- 
berdienstim  Nordreiche  Israel  ftir  etwas  ganz  Unverfangliches  halten,  wogegen  weder  Elia 
noch  Elisa  protestirt  hiitten.  Zuerst  habe  Hosea  von  seinem  besonderen  theologischen 
Standpunkt  aus  dagegen  Verwahrung  eingelegt.  1st  denn  fUr  diese  Kritiker  i  Kon. 
Cap.  13  absolut  nicht  vorhanden?  Ein  Mann  Gottes  aus  Juda,  also  ein  Prophet  des 
wahren  Gottes,  bedroht  hier  den  Altar  von  Bethel,  vor  dem  gerade  Jerobeam  opfert,  und 
verheisst  ein  Racher  ex  ossibns  Davidis,  der  die  Hcihenpriester  auf  diesem  Altar  opfern 
und  ihn  dadurch  entheiligen  werde.  Zur  Gewahr  der  Richtigkeit  dieser  Verheissung  gibt 
er  nach  Prophetnart  das  naher  liegende  Zeichen,  dass  der  Altar  zerbersten  und  die 
opferasche  sich  verschUtten  werde,  was  denn  alsbald  geschah.  Die  zur  Lahmlegung 
dieses  Propheten  gebieterisch  ausgestreckte  Hand  Jerobeam's  verdorrt  und  wird  geheilt; 
dann  aber  muss  Jerobeam  die  furchtbare  Abweisung  Seitens  des  Propheten  erfahren,  dass 
derselbe  nicht  einmal  einen  Bissen  Brots  von  ihm  annehraen  will.  Obschon  augenblicklich 
geheilt,  ist  er  doch  verworfen  fiir  immer  mit  sammt  seinem  ganzen  Kalberdeinst !  Nach 
Wellhausen  (S.  300)  ist  dass  nun  eine  grobe  Legende,  die  nicht  einmal  dem  Deuterono- 
misten  angehort.  Warum  das  der  Fall  ist,  dass  erfahren  wir  absolut  nicht  (Was  Wellhausen 
beibringt,  hat  nicht  den  Schein  eines  Grundes,  denn  Cap.  13,  33  steht  deutlich:  '  Jerobeam 
machte  it'ieder,  d.  h.  wieter  Priester  der  Hohen)  es  ist  dass  ein  solches  dictum,  wie  es 
sich  die  modernen  Kritiker  gem  gestatten,  und  dass  eben  zu  jenen  gehort,  die  sich  dann  wie 
ein  Dogma  durch  die  neueren  kritischen  Schriften  hindurchziehen." 


The  Law  and  the  Prophets.  297 

other   things,  by  the  wine-bibbing  habits  of  the  Baal 
worshipers.^ 

Hezekiah,  of  whom  the  writer  of  the  Books  of  Kings 
declares  that  he  "  clave  unto  the  Lord  "  and  kept  his 
commandments  "which  the  Lord  commanded  Moses," 
according  to  the  Scotch  professor  became  a  reformer 
under  circumstances  even  less  creditable  to  his  good 
sense  and  supposed  loyalty  to  the  national  religion. 
He  had  seen,  as  the  result  of  recent  wars,  many  heathen 
shrines  demolished  and  finally  abandoned ;  while  the 
temple  at  Jerusalem,  in  view  of  its  apparent  inviola- 
bility, at  the  same  time  assumed  a  relatively  greater 
importance.  Hence  the  thought  came  to  him,  Why 
should  not  he  set  about  the  demolition  of  idolatrous 
shrines  and  so  enhance  still  more  the  importance  of 
the  temple  ?  ^ 

The  conclusiveness  of  this  reasoning  is  only  equaled 
by  that  of  the  same  critic  when  he  announces  that  the 
code  of  Deuteronomy  "  must  be  regarded  as  in  a  great 
measure  a  product  of  reflection  on  the  failure  of 
Hezekiah's  measures."  ^  Criticism,  properly  speaking, 
this  is  not.     It  does  not  indicate  even  a  candid  inspec- 

1  The  Prophets  of  Israel,  pp.  84, 85.  Professor  Smith  admits  that  this  is  only  a  surmise 
of  his.  "  We  have  no  evidence  that  Elijah  had  a  personal  connection  with  the  Rechab- 
ites;  but  Jonadab  was  a  prominent  partisan  of  Jehu,  and  went  with  him  to  see  his  zeal  for 
Jehovah  when  he  put  an  end  to  liaal  and  his  worsliipers  "  (2  Kings  x.  15  sq.).  The 
other  things  which  are  supposed  to  have  influenced  Elijah  in  his  opposition  to  Baal  were; 
(i)  the  influence  of  the  prophetic  guilds,  although  the  Professor  concedes  that  "  Elijah 
himself,  as  far  as  we  can  judge,  had  little  to  do  with  these  guilds  ";  and  (2)  the  sense  of 
the  injustice  done  to  Naboth  by  Ahab  in  the  matter  of  the  vineyard.  These  are  all  the 
reasons  which  this  critic  can  find  for  Elijah's  contest  with  the  prophets  of  Baal  and  their 
hideous  idolatry. 

*  The  Prophets  of  Israel,  p.  362  f. 

'  Ibid.  p.  368  f.  It  was  not  the  result  of  reflection  on  the  prohibitions  of  the  Deca- 
logue, or  on  the  inherent  wrong  of  idolatry;  but  "  it  starts  from  the  observation  that  it 
is  impossible  to  get  rid  of  Canaanite  elements  of  worship  until  sacrifice  and  ritual  obser- 
vances arc  confined  to  one  sanctuary,  and  that  this  again  is  impossible  till  the  old  principle 
is  given  up  that  all  food,  and  especially  every  animal  slain  for  a  fe.ast,  is  unclean  unless 
presented  at  the  altar."  So  it  is  to  political  shrewdness  and  finesse,  as  well  as  sober 
reflection,  that  we  are  to  ascribe  th?  origin  of  the  Deuteronomic  code. 


298        TJie  PentateucJi :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

tion  of  the  records  ;  but  only  a  not  very  happy  faculty 
for  guessing,  here  too  much  under  the  influence  of  the 
faculty  for  wishing  to  be  a  safe  guide  in  historical 
questions.  I  have  heard  of  an  artist  who  once  bought 
on  the  market  a  cheap  picture  of  an  animal,  and  finding 
it  scrapable,  scraped  out  of  it  a  masterpiece  by  Correg- 
gio.  But  who  ever  heard  of  a7t  artist  persistently 
attempting  to  reverse  this  process  ? 

These,  however,  are  merely  negative  results.  We 
now  go  further,  and  affirm  that  the  Israelitish  prophets 
who  rose  before  the  exile,  so  far  from  being  absolutely 
silent  respecting  the  Levitical  code  and  unaffected  by 
it,  on  the  contrary  show,  from  first  to  last,  that  it  has 
made  a  most  powerful  impression  upon  them.  Their 
work,  severally  and  unitedly,  is  largely  a  work  of 
recovery  and  repair  in  significant  harmony  with  its 
provisions  ;  while,  as  we  believe,  definite  allusion  is 
made  to  it  as  to  a  well-known,  extensive,  and  divinely 
authoritative  body  of  laws. 

There  is  the  prophet  Joel,  for  example,  who,  until  the 
exigencies  of  this  new  theory  made  another  conclusion 
imperative,  was  regarded  by  the  almost  unanimous 
consent  of  scholars  as  one  of  the  oldest  in  the  list.^ 
He  says  nothing,  it  is  true,  about  any  Mosaic  law  of 
offerings  which  controlled  the  sacrificial  ritual  of  the 
temple  in  his  day.  But  is  it  any  the  less  to  the  point 
that,  in  evident  sympathy  with  an  established  priest- 
hood, on  the  occasion  of  a  great  national  calamity  he 

1  And  it  may  be  said  that  one  of  the  chief  problems  of  the  Wellhausen  type  of  critics 
has  seemed  all  along  to  have  been  how  best  to  discredit,  or  get  rid  of,  the  defendant's 
witnesses.  As  late  as  1875,  when  Duhm's  Theologie  der  Propheten  appeared,  he  was 
obliged  to  admit  the  virtual  unanimity  of  scholars  on  the  question  of  Joel's  early  date. 
He  says  (p.  71):  "  Zwar  wird  gegenwartig  Joel  fast  mit  einstimmigkeit  hoher  hinauf 
gesetzt ;  doch  hoffen  wir  das  jiingere  Alter  dieses  Propheten  mit  iiberwiegender  Wahrschein- 
lichkeit  erweisen  zu  konnen."  The  proofs  given,  however  (pp.  275-277),  are,  for  the 
most  part,  simply  a  begging  of  the  question,  being  based  on  the  truthfulness  of  the 
theory  which  is  under  discussion,  namely,  that  the  Levitical  code  originated  at  the  time 
of  the  exile. 


The  Law  and  the  Prophets.  299 

summons  them  as  ministers  of  his  God  to  gird  them- 
selves and  lament  because  the  meal-offering  and  drink- 
offering  are  cut  off  from  the  house  of  their  God  (i.  13)  ? 

So,  too,  Amos,  the  inspired  herdsman  of  Tekoa,  who 
prophesied  near  the  beginning  of  the  eighth  century 
B.C.,  and,  though  himself  from  Judah,  in  that  marked 
unity  of  spirit  which  characterized  all  the  prophets, 
carried  his  bold  message  to  the  very  centre  of 
idolatrous  worship  in  the  northern  kingdom.  It  is  of 
transgression  that  he  speaks.  There  is  some  definite 
law  of  the  Lord  (ii.  4;  cf.  Lev.  xxvi.  15)  which  has 
been  despised  and  statutes  which  have  not  been  kept. 

It  is  evident,  moreover,  that  something  more  than 
the  Decalogue  is  referred  to  (iv.  6-1 1  ;  v.  4,  5,  21,  22), 
when,  with  withering  sarcasm,  which  would  have  been 
simply  farcical  if  there  had  been  no  reference  to  a 
legally  established  place  and  order  of  worship,  he  bids 
the  people  of  Israel  come  to  Bethel  and  transgress  and 
at  Gilgal  to  multiply  transgressions  ;  and,  further,  in 
masterly  hyperbole,  summons  them  to  bring  their  slain 
offerings  every  morning,  their  tithes  once  in  three  days, 
and,  like  the  Pharisees  of  aftertimes,  to  publish  abroad 
their  freewill  offerings,  whose  value  was  in  their  being 
the  product  of  a  silent,  inward  sense  and  impulse.  In 
these  utterances  there  are  nearly  as  many  allusions  to 
requirements  of  the  Levitical  or  Deuteronomic  legisla- 
tion as  there  are  clauses  (Deut.  xiv.  28,  29;  xvi.  10; 
Lev.  xxii.  21,  23;  Num.  xv.  3). 

Hosea,  beginning  his  work  near  the  same  time,  but 
still,  according  to  our  critics,  not  far  from  two  centuries 
before  the  appearance  of  Deuteronomy,  and  three  and 
a  half  centuries  before  the  code  of  Leviticus  was 
conceived  by  Ezra  and  his  coadjutors,  we  find  hotly 
denouncing  the  priesthood  of  his  day ;    not  as  pj'iests, 


300        The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

observe,  but  as  those  who  had  been  unfaithful  and 
wilfully  ignorant  of  their  appointed  work.  They 
had  misled  the  people.  They  had  forgotten  the  law 
of  their  God  (iv.  6.)  and  God,  therefore,  repudiated 
them. 

From  the  immediate  context  and  other  utterances  of 
this  prophet  it  is  plain  enough  to  see  what  this  law  is 
which,  in  his  view,  the  priests  have  forgotten  and 
trampled  upon.  It  is  a  law  which  has  to  do  with  the 
sin-offering^  and  other  sacrifices  (iv.  8;  cf.  Lev.  vi.  19; 
Hos.  viii.  13  ;  ix.  4)  ;  with  the  distinction  in  food  as 
clean  and  unclean  (ix.  3,  4)  ;  with  feasts,  and  new 
moons,  and  Sabbaths  (ii.  13,  cf.  Tev.  xxiii.  2,  4  ff.). 
Moreover,  it  is  a  written  law  of  wide  extent  and  many 
precepts.  "  I  write  for  him,"  says  the  prophet  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord,  "the  myriads  of  my  law"  (viii.  12, 
not  "the  great  things  of  my  law,"  as  the  A.  V.  has  it) 
— "they  were  accounted  a  strange  thing." 

I  am  aware  that  among  those  who  think  the  prophecy 
of  Hosea  ought  not  to  contain  such  a  sentiment  the 
most  persistent  efforts  have  been  made  to  put  upon 
these  plain  words  a  different  meaning  ;  but  the  motive 
has  been  too  transparent  and  the  exegesis  too  strained 
to  command  anything  more  than  a  strictly  partisan  sup- 

iLit.,  "They  eat  [fut.  expressing  the  idea  of  what  is  customary]  the  sin  of  my 
people."  Wellhausen  {Gcschichtc,  i.  p.  75)  and  his  adherents  (cf.  The  Old  Test,  in 
the  Jewish  Church,  p.  251 ;  The  Prophets  cf  Israel,  p.  105)  deny  that  the  sin-offering  is 
referred  to.  But  if  the  priests  are  here  spoken  of,  it  is  difficult  to  see  what  else  can  be 
meant.  According  to  the  Levitical  code  (Lev.  vi.  ig),  a  part  of  the  ceremony  of  this 
very  sin-offering  was  for  the  priest  to  eat  of  it;  and  there  can  be  no  good  reason  for  sup- 
posing that  this  is  not  meant  here,  except  that  it  would  offer  an  insurmountable  obstacle  to 
the  new  theory.  That  a  fine  paid  in  money  to  the  priest  by  the  transgressor  is  intended 
can  by  no  means  be  admitted.  A  passage  adduced  in  its  support  (2  Kings  xii.  17)  does 
not  mean  this  (cf.  Theile,  Die  Biicher  der  Konige,  in  loc.) ;  and  there  is  nothing  in  the 
Old  Testament  which  gives  the  least  coloring  to  the  hypothesi.s  that  any  such  system  of 
indulgences  was  ever  known  in  Israel.  The  context  of  our  passage  shows  that  with  the 
priests  of  Hosea's  time  the  eating  was  the  principal  part  of  the  ceremonial  of  the  sin- 
offering.  And  they  were  quite  willing  that  the  people  should  commit  more  sin  that 
they  themselves  might  have  the  more  to  eat.  (Cf.  the  conduct  of  Eli's  sons,  i  Sam.  ii. 
12-17.) 


Tlic  Laiu  and  the  Prophets.  301 

port.i  In  fact,  in  addition  to  the  evident  references  to 
the  Mosaic  laws,  moral  or  ritual,  just  referred  to,  it  has 
been  shown  by  a  recent  writer  that  there  is  not  a  single 
book  of  the  Pentateuch  which,  in  the  way  of  illustration 
or  historical  reminiscence  has  not  left  its  impression  on 
the  pages  of  our  prophet.^ 

Micah,  also,  in  that  memorable  passage  (vi.  6-8)  cited 
by  our  critics  to  show  that  he  rejected  sacrifices  alto- 
gether, demanding  in  their  place  that  men  should  do 
justly,  love  mercy,  and  walk  humbly  with  their  God,  in 
this  very  utterance  but  echoes,  as  it  should  seem,  a 
sentiment  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  (x.  12),  which 
it  is  affirmed  did  not  yet  exist,  and  presupposes  the 
practice  of  ritual  observances  whose  warrant  can  only 
be  found  in  the  Levitical  code  (Lev.  ix.  3  ;  cf.  Num.  xv. 
I— 16;  xxviii.,  xxix.). 

But  of  still  more  importance  than  these  isolated 
references  is  the  fact  that  there  are  certain  grand 
features  of  the  preexilian  prophets,  common  at  least  to 
the  most  of  them,  which,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  can 

1  Professor  Smith  (The  Old  Test.  etc.  p.  297)  says:  "  But  the  prophets  of  the  eighth 
century  never  speak  of  a  written  law  of  Moses.  The  only  passage  which  has  been  taken 
to  do  so  is  Hosea  viii.  12.  And  here  the  grammatical  translation  is,  '  Though  I  wrote  for 
him  my  Torah  in  ten  thousand  precepts '  they  would  be  esteemed  a  strange  thing." 
[Revised  version :  "Though  I  write  for  him,  etc.,  .  .  .  they  are  counted."]  The  matter, 
however,  is  not  so  easily  disposed  of.  If  the  use  of  the  past  tense  in  the  last  cl.ause  is 
not  allowed  any  weight  in  determining  how  the  first  verb  is  to  be  rendered,  or  if  Smend's 
objection  {Studicn  u.  Krit.,  1876,  p.  633)  that  the  hypothetical  translation  emasculates 
the  passage  of  all  sense  whether  the  verb  or  the  word  for  "  ten  thousand"  be  emph.asized, 
still  how  can  it  be  denied  that  there  lies  on  the  face  of  the  declaration  the  presupposition 
of  a  nurittcji  Torah?  One  of  the  latest  commentators  (Nowack,  Dcr  Prophet  Hosea, 
p.  140)  renders  the  verb  as  Ewald  rendered  it  by  "  ich  schreibe."  But  though  it  were  to 
be  taken  hypothelically  (as  the  future  in  Ps.  xci.  7),  that  must  not  be  allowed  to  obscure 
the  obvious  force  of  the  verb  that  follows.  As  Bredenkamp  has  insisted:  "  Das  als 
thatsachlich  ausgesagte  Fremdachten  dcr  Torah  oder  Toroth  (LXX.),sctzt  nothwendig 
das  Vorhandcnsein  desselben  und  zwar  als  geschriebener  voraus"  (Geselz  und  Propheten 
p.  37  f.).  Cf  also  "  the  law  of  the  L<ird  and  his  statutes"  in  Amos  (ii.  4),  of  which 
Rudolph  Sinand  wrote  in  1876:  "  I  do  not  understand  how  Duhm  can  affirm  that  these 
words  should  not  be  directly  referred  to  an  external  divine  law.  For  choq  is  really  just 
=  sintittttiH"  {Siudie/i   n.  Krit.  (1876),  p.  634,  note). 

'  Curtiss,  Le7>itieal  Priests,  pp.  176-178;  cf.  Smend,  I.e.  p.  641. 


302       The  Pentateiich  :   Its  Origin  and  Strncture. 

only  be  accounted  for  by  regarding  them  as  the  result 
of  the  priestly  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch.  One  of 
them  is  the  uniform  attitude  of  these  prophets  toward 
a  central  sanctuary.  According  to  the  current  criticism 
they  ought,  at  least  the  oldest  of  them,  to  be  wholly 
silent  on  this  subject,  since,  until  Deuteronomy 
appeared,  more  than  two  hundred  years  after  the  date 
of  Joel  and  Amos,  and  a  hundred  after  that  of  Hosea, 
Micah,  and  Isaiah,  there  was  no  sign  of  a  law  regarding 
it.  Every  one  did,  it  is  said,  in  this  respect  what  was 
right  in  his  own  eyes  (cf.  Deut.  xii.  8).  In  fact,  it  is 
supposed  that  there  was  sufficient  justification  for  such 
a  state  of  things  found  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant 
itself  (Ex.  XX.  24,  25). 

It  is  Joel,  however,  who  calls  for  the  proclamation  of 
a  solemn  fast  in  Zion,  that  is,  Jerusalem  (ii.  15),  and 
declares  that  it  is  the  dwelling-place  of  Jehovah  (iv.  17). 
It  is  Amos  who  begins  his  terrible  arraingment  of  the 
kingdoms  of  the  earth,  especially  of  Judah  and  Israel, 
with  the  thrilling  words  "  Out  of  Zion  the  Lord  roareth, 
and  uttereth  his  voice  from  Jerusalem  "  (i.  2).  Bethel, 
the  seat  of  idolatry,  is  to  him  a  Beth-Aven  (a  seat  of 
nothingness),  and  at  Gilgal  and  Beersheba  God  would 
be  sought  in  vain  (v.  4-6). 

It  is  Hosea,  a  citizen  of  the  nortJiern  kingdom,  who 
invariably  stigmatizes  that  kingdom  as  an  organized 
apostasy,  without  a  future  and  unworthy  of  the  favor  of 
Jehovah.  Judah  it  was  that  should  find  mercy  and 
salvation  from  the  Lord  their  God  (i.  6,  7  ;  cf.  xiv.  i). 
With  his  eyes  fixed,  as  it  would  appear,  on  Jerusalem, 
he  delivers  the  message  which  closes  his  book :  "  Take 
with  you  words,  and  turn  to  the  Lord ;  say  unto  him. 
Take  away  all  iniquity,  and  receive  us  graciously ;  so 
will  we  render  the  calves  of  our  lips  "  (xiv.  2,  3  ;  cf.  his 


The  Lazv  and  the  Prophets,  303 

attitude  toward  Jehu  (i.  4)  after  he  had  shown  his  true 
character). 

So  too,  Micah,  in  that  sublime  prediction  concerning 
the  last  days,  when  the  mountain  of  the  house  of  the 
Lord  should  be  established  on  the  top  of  the  mountains, 
announces  that  it  is  from  Zion  that  the  law  shall  go 
forth,  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem  (iv, 
2,  3).  And  especially  Isaiah,  the  close  of  whose  pro- 
phetical activity  antedated  still  by  three  quarters  of  a 
century  the  supposed  date  of  Deuteronomy,  leaves  us 
no  room  to  doubt  how  he  regarded  a  plurality  of  altars 
among  his  countrymen.  Zion  is  the  mountain  of  the 
Lord  to  which  the  nations  shall  resort  (ii.  2  ff.),  copying 
the  very  words  of  his  contemporary  Micah  (iv.  i,  2),  to 
give  additional  emphasis  to  the  thought.  The  Lord 
would  dwell  on  Zion,  as  once  in  the  fiery  cloud  of  the 
wilderness,  and  no  enemy,  not  even  a  Sennacherib, 
should  dare  to  lift  his  hand  against  it  (x.  32  ;  cf.  xxxiii. 
20 ;  XXX.  29). 

To  those  who  find  it  not  only  unnecessary,  but  pre- 
sumptuous, to  make  allowance  in  these  utterances  of 
God's  prophets  for  a  supposed  political  bias  such 
evidence  as  this  will  be  amply  conclusive.  The  theory 
that  during  all  this  period  there  existed  no  statute 
touching  a  central  sanctuary  where  the  ordinary 
worship  of  God  was  to  be  conducted  is  a  chimera. 
Defection,  illegality,  ignorance,  perverseness  there  was 
enough  of ;  but  there  was  also  something  lying  back  in 
the  early  history  of  the  people,  well-known,  fixed,  and 
authoritative,  which  no  true  prophet  could  ignore  and 
to  which  no  instructed  Israelitish  conscience  could  fail 
to  respond. 

Let  us  direct  attention  to  another  thing  made 
singularly  emphatic  by  these  early  prophets,  and    yet 


304        The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

most  singularly  made  emphatic  if  the  theory  of  oui 
critics  be  accepted ;  namely,  the  fact  that  a  solemn 
covenant  existed  between  Jehovah  and  the  Israelitish 
people.  Sometimes  it  is  under  the  form  of  the  marriage 
relation  that  it  is  represented,  as  very  largely  and 
repeatedly  by  Hosea  (i.-iii.),  who,  it  may  be  said,  is  full 
of  the  thought  and  fortifies  himself  in  it  against  the 
stout  resistance  of  rulers  and  people  (vi.  5,  7  ;  viii.  i). 
He  charges  them  with  swearing  falsely  in  making  this 
covenant  (x.  4),  and  with  being  a  people  bent  on 
backsliding  (xi.  7;  cf.  xiv.  1).^  Sometimes,  as  in  Amos, 
it  is  by  a  touching  allusion  to  the  early  history  (iii. 
1-3).  The  sons  of  Israel  are  the  family  whom  God  had 
brought  up  out  of  Egypt.  Them  only  had  he  known  of 
all  the  families  of  the  earth  ;  therefore  he  would  punish 
them  for  their  iniquity.  Could  two  walk  together 
except  they  were  agreed  }  (Cf.  also  iv.  6-1 1  ;  v.  4,  5,  21, 
22.)  Sometimes,  as  in  the  graceful  metaphors  of  an 
Isaiah,  it  is  under  the  image  of  a  family  whom  God  had 
nourished  and  brought  up,  to  be  repaid  with  unthank- 
fulness  and  rebellion  (i.  2,  4)  ;  or  of  a  vineyard  on  which 
there  could  not  have  been  expended  more  kindly  effort, 
while  it  had  rewarded  its  patient  and  painstaking  Lord 
only  with  wildness  and  emptiness  (v.  2,  4), 

But  under  whatever  form  it  may  appear,  it  is  every- 
where a  conspicuous  and  controlling  fact  with  these 
earlier  prophets.  Their  most  powerful  reasoning  is 
rooted  in  it,  and  from  it,  as  from  an  acknowledged  event 
of   history,  their  most   stirring   appeals    find    directest 

1  So  Nowack,  ibid.  p.  xxx.  of  the  Einleitung :  "  Sehen  wir  darauf  hin  unser  Euch  an, 
so  ergiebt  sich  als  Grundvoraussetzung  fiir  die  Busspredigt  Hoseas  die,  dass  Jahve  in  der 
Zeit,  da  Israel  aus  Egypten  zog  und  in  der  Wiiste  weilte,  dies  Yolk  sich  erwahlt  und  einen 
Bund  mit  ihm  geschlossen  (ix.  lo;  xi.  i ;  xii.  lo;  xiii.  4,  5)  ;  kraft  dessen  Israel  eiiie  Reihe 
von  Verpflichtungen  auf  sich  nahm,  die  in  der  Torah  Jahves  niedergelegt  sind  (viii.  i, 
12),  als  deren  Inhaber  und  Verkiindiger  Hosea  die  Priester  dieses  Reiches  ansieht'' 
Civ.  6). 


The  Law  and  the  Prophets.  30^ 

inspiration.  So  common  and  universally  accepted, 
indeed,  had  the  thought  become,  that  it  had  already 
passed  over  from  a  literal  to  a  metaphorical  sense,  and 
we  find  Hosea  (ii.  20)  speaking  of  a  covenant  which  the 
Lord  would  make  with  beasts  of  the  field,  for  Israel's 
sake. 

Carlyle  speaks  of  a  peculiar  class  of  people  in  his  day 
who,  in  writing  and  deed,  struggled  not  in  favor  of 
duty  being  done,  but  against  duty  of  any  sort  being 
required.!  Our  prophets  obviously  did  not  belong  to 
such  a  class.  They  have  the  keenest  possible  sense  of 
certain  obligations  which  had  been  assumed  by  Israel, 
and  hence  of  certain  inevitable  obligations  to  be  dis- 
charged by  Israel. 

Now,  will  any  one  venture  the  assertion  that  such  a 
thought  and  moral  force  as  this  of  the  covenant  could 
have  sprung  from  the  oral  transmission  of  those  few 
chapters  of  Exodus  known  as  the  Book  of  the  Cove- 
nant }  By  no  means.  Its  solemn  basis  and  warrant  lie 
outside  that  book  (cf.  especially  xix.  3-6  f.  ;  xxiv.  3  f.). 
Our  critics  themselves  rather  seek  to  deny  that  any 
such  covenant  existed ;  or,  if  it  existed  in  thought,  that 
it  was  anything  more  than  a  figment  of  the  brain,  a 
mere  fancy  of  the  prophets,  no  real  thing  presupposing 
two  covenanting  parties  ;  presupposing  as  to  the  Israel- 
ites any  actual  covenant  must  (Ps.  1,  5),  and  as  the  very 
etymology  of  the  word  and  history  of  the  conception 
demand,  sacrificial  blood  to  solemnize  it  and  sacredly 
bind  the  covenanting  parties  to  its  provisions.^ 

^  Reminiscences  by  Froude  (Harper's  ed.),  ii.  p.  76. 

^  Cf.  Zech.  ix.  II :  "  Even  thou !  through  the  blood  of  thy  coven.int,  T  have  sent  forth 
thy  prisoners  out  of  the  pit."  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  ceremonies  recorded  in  Ex. 
xxiv.  3-8  are  here  referred  to.  WcUhauscn  says,  in  a  note  on  p.  434  of  his  Gcschichte, 
i.:  "  Die  Vorstellung  cines  zwischen  Jahve  und  Israel  eingcgangencn  P.undes  (Berith), 
von  der  aus  die  Autorilaten  der  Biblischen  Theologie  das  ganze  Alte  Testament  zu 
verstehen  glauben,  findct  sich  bei  den  altcrcn  Propheten  nicht."' 


3o6       The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Could  anything  be  more  fatal  than  thus  to  fly  in  the 
face  of  what  is  written  as  plainly  on  the  whole  pro- 
phetical literature  of  this  period  as  high  spiritual 
aspiration  and  loyalty  to  Jehovah  are  written  there  ? 
It  is  as  an  unfaithful  wife  that  Israel  is  depicted,  who 
has  forgotten  the  days  of  her  first  tender  love,  when, 
led  by  a  prophet  of  the  Lord,  she  came  up  out  of 
Egypt  (Hos.  ii.  17;  xi.  i;  xii.  14).  'She  has  broken 
her  plighted  troth  and  been  treacherous  and  untrue 
(Hos.  V.  7 ;  vi.  7).  She  is  even  represented  as  saying 
in  the  better  future,  "  I  will  arise  and  return  to  my  first 
husband ;  for  it  was  better  with  me  then  than  now " 
(Hos.  ii.  7).  There  is  nothing  more  characteristic  of 
the  prophetical  activity  of  an  Hosea  or  Amos  than  just 
this  uniform  and  persistent  effort  to  reclaim  and  bring 
back  the  nation  to  what  appears  to  be  a  universally 
acknowledged  standard.  Human  language  offers  no 
resources  to  express  more  strongly  than  is  here 
expressed  the  sense  of  the  prophets  that  Israel  had 
fallen  away,  backslidden,  broken  faith  with  God.  This 
is  the  actual,  palpable  substance  of  their  commonest 
utterances. 

We  never  find  them,  as  though  founders  of  a  new 
religion,  dealing  in  abstractions  or  generalities ;  hover- 
ing in  the  air  with  imaginary  conceptions  of  duty ; 
pulling  now  one  way  and  now  another,  or,  in  obvious 
collusion,  joining  their  forces  to  hoodwink  a  credulous 
people.  They  are  at  the  farthest  possible  remove  from 
anything  like  mere  histrionic  representation  There 
is  one  thing  which  all  will  freely  accord  to  these  men, 
and  that  is,  a  marked  intellectual  superiority.  But 
there  is  another  thing  which  we  must  just  as  certainly 
accord  them  —  a  deep  and  all-pervading  intellectual 
sincerity  and  uprightness.     They  had  tremendous  con- 


The  Law  and  the  Prophets.  307 

victions,  not  a  bit  of  dilettanteism.  They  believed, 
therefore  they  spoke.  If  they  appear  somewhat  intol- 
erant it  is  because  they  felt  that  they  had  the  warrant 
of  history,  and  of  the  God  of  history,  to  be  intolerant. 
It  is  with  historical  and  popularly  accepted  facts  that 
their  message  is  concerned  whether  here  or  there, 
with  something  well  known  to  all,  and  long  known, 
and  known  not  simply  by  the  understanding,  but  also 
by  the  heart  and  conscience. 

A  marked  characteristic  of  the  Hebrew  prophets 
I  say  was  this,  that  they  were  men  of  thorough  and 
intense  convictions.  Their  utterances  were  first  bur- 
dens that  pressed  with  the  weight  of  positive  truths  on 
their  own  hearts.  The  horizon  of  their  knowledge  may 
have  been  limited  ;  but,  so  far  as  it  concerned  their 
communications,  it  was  clearly  defined.  The  era  of 
half-truths  had  not  yet  dawned.  Religious  speculation 
had  not  yet  seduced  the  serious-minded  from  the  con- 
templation and  the  realization  of  awful  facts.  The 
word  "  agnostic,"  which  may  be  explained  as  the  polite 
excuse  of  ignorance  urged  in  our  day  as  a  veil  for 
indifference  or  contempt,  was  still  unknown.  Above  all, 
a  spirit  of  agnosticism  had  not  so  taken  possession  of 
God's  own  servants  that  they  were  unwilling  to  speak 
with  positiveness,  even  where  He  himself  had  clearly 
made  revelations  and  enjoined  duties.  The  great  first 
principles  of  religion,  the  being  and  personality  of  God, 
His  government  by  a  plan  which  literally  leaves  noth- 
ing out,  the  inexorable  law  of  righteousness,  the  innate 
ugliness  and  clinging  curse  of  sin,  these  were  not 
with  them  matters  of  technical,  philosophical  discussion, 
but  fixed  and  overwhelming  motives.  On  them  they 
planted  themselves,  and  there  they  rested,  as  on  an 
immovable  fulcrum,  the  mighty  lever  of  their  influence 


3o8        TJie  PcntatencJi:  Its  Oi'igin  and  Struct Jire. 

over  men.  The  problems  they  had  to  face,  the  work 
they  had  to  do,  really  left  no  margin  for  vacillation  and 
uncertainty  on  questions  like  these.  I  do  not  mean, 
please  note,  that  the  prophets  of  Israel  fully  understood, 
in  their  widest  relations,  all  of  their  own  utterances. 
It  is  clear  that  they  did  not.  I  mean  just  as  little  to 
say  that  what  they  had  to  declare  was  always  in 
harmony  with  their  natural  inclinations.  It  was  often 
quite  the  reverse.  What,  indeed,  is  more  pitiful  in 
human  story  —  tragic,  one  might  say,  if  it  were 
regarded  simply  as  human  story  —  than  the  lives  of 
some  of  these  men }  It  was  just  this  sharp  antago- 
nism between  a  sense  of  imperative  duty  and  all  the 
kindly  impulses  of  the  human  heart  that  wrung  from 
them  such  touching  exclamations  as  abound  in  their 
writings. •* 

It  was  on  the  ground  of  an  alleged  covenant  that 
Israel  is  called  upon  to  be  a  holy  people  to  the  Lord 
(Ex.  xix.   5,  6;  Lev.  xi.  44;  xx.  25,  26;  Deut.  xiv.  21). 

1  Cf.  Watson,  The  La-iv  and  the  Prophets,  p.  79:  "  The  teaching  of  the  prophets  is 
such  that  a  careful  preparation  of  the  teachers  is  demanded.  Prophetical  teaching  is  not 
one  of  those  common  plants  concerning  which  we  do  not  need  to  ask  whence  it  springs. 
The  prophets  have  familiarized  us  with  certain  principles  of  right.  They  have  taught  us 
what  it  is  which  makes  a  man  acceptable  in  God's  sight.  Their  teaching  on  these 
points  is  accepted  by  all  Christians  as  certain,  nay,  as  obvious,  truth.  But  these  truths 
vrere  not  always  familiar  and  obvious.  Their  doctrine,  when  they  taught  it,  was  in 
many  noints  new  and  strange.  It  is  certain  they  derived  no  help  from  heathen  teachers. 
It  is  certain  they  were  far  in  advance  of  their  nation  and  their  time.  Hence  the  serious 
difficulty  which  arises  when  the  sole  basis  of  their  teaching  is  taken  away. 

"The  teaching  of  the  prophets  was  unique;  it  was  also  one  consistent  whole.  The 
prophets'  teachings  were  at  unity  amongst  themselves.  What  was  the  cause  of  this 
agreement  ?  Cause  there  must  have  been.  The  prophets  did  not  hand  down  from  age  to 
age  the  sayings  of  their  predecessors.  Of  them  as  of  the  Great  Prophet  it  was  true,  they 
taught  with  authority,  and  not  as  the  scribes.  The  later  canonical  prophets  used  freely 
the  writings  of  the  earlier  ones,  but  they  were  independent  teachers.  The  earlier 
prophets  were  in  the  main  independent  of  one  another.  We  want  a  founder  of  the  pro- 
phetical school  of  thought,  but  unless  he  is  Moses  we  cannot  find  him.  On  the  critical 
theory  he  cannot  be  Moses.  The  very  few,  though  no  doubt  great,  ideas,  which  the 
modern  critics  allow  Moses  to  have  left  behind,  do  not  make  a  sufficiently  wide  common 
ground  for  the  prophetical  teaching.  On  the  traditional  theory  the  agreement  of  the 
prophets  is  natural;  they  have  all  the  same  teacher,  even  God,  and  they  all  use  the  same 
textbook,  the  Pentateuch.     On  the  critical  theory  the  agreement  is  inexplicable." 


The  Law  and  the  Prophets.  309 

They  were  his  pecuHar  possession.  He  was  holy  and 
they  should  be  holy.  And  it  is  noticeable  that  this 
idea  of  holiness,  though  naturally,  as  found  in  our 
prophets,  not  bounded  by  the  external  requirements  of 
the  Levitical  code  (Isa.  vi.  3),  at  least  takes  knowledge 
of  them  and  is  everywhere  more  or  less  modified  by 
them.  Hence  it  is  that  Jeremiah  distinguishes  the  cir- 
cumcised Israelite,  who  is  yet  uncircumcised  in  heart, 
from  the  uncircumcised  Egyptian  (ix.  24,  25),  He 
recognizes  the  outward  rite  no  less  that  he  recognizes 
also  its  inward,  spiritual  meaning.  And  Isaiah,  the 
most  idealistic  of  all  these  earlier  prophets,  stigmatizes 
the  people  of  his  day  as  rebellious,  in  that  they  pollute 
themselves  by  dwelling  amidst  the  sepulchres  of  the 
dead,  lodging  in  the  monuments,  and  eating  swine's 
flesh,  the  broth  of  abominable  (that  is,  ceremonially 
unclean)  things  steaming  in  their  caldrons  (Ixv.  3,  4  ; 
Ixvi.  17).^ 

Everywhere  the  land  of  Israel  is  looked  upon  as  holy 
for  Israel's  sake  (Amos  vii.  17;  Hosea  ix.  3,  5);  Zion 
and  its  temple  are  holy ;  and  no  less  the  altar-gifts  and 
those  who  offer  them  (Isa.  xxiii.  18;  xliii.  28;  Jer.  xi. 
15);  feast-s.  Sabbaths,  and  festival  days  (Isa.  xxx.  29; 
Ivi.  6;  Iviii.  13;  Hosea  ix.  5).  It  would  be  difficult, 
indeed,  to  find  a  prophet  after  the  exile  who  shows 
a  deeper  sense  of  the  existence  and  sacred  character  of 
some  ceremonial  law  than,  for  examjile,  Hosea  seems  to 
do  in  one  of  his  prophetic  utterances  (ix.  3-5  ;  cf.  Num. 
xix,  14  f.). 

The  inference  is  imperative.  These  prophets  refer, 
though  it  may  be  never  so  indirectly,  to  the  extended 
legislation  of  the  Pentateuch.     There  is  no  other  sup- 

'  Even  on  the  supposition  that  these  passages  are  not  from  Isaiah,  but  from  some  one 
who  lived  during  the  cxilt;,  still  they  must  have  been  spoken  long  before  the  supposed 
introduction  of  the  "  Code  of  the  Priests"  (444  B.C.). 


3 1  o       The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Stritcture. 

posable  circumstance  which  so  well  accounts  for  their 
habitual  attitude,  their  prevailing  current  of  thought 
and  coloring  of  speech,  as  this  overshadowing  Sinaitic 
code  founded  on  the  covenant  formally  concluded 
through  the  mediation  of  Moses.  Such  a  covenant,  in 
the  nature  of  the  case,  demanded  an  extended  Torah  to 
define  its  provisions.  To  this  same  Torah  in  general, 
we  believe,  Jeremiah  refers  in  that  prediction  of  future 
brighter  days,  when  Jehovah  should  make  another  cove- 
nant with  the  house  of  Israel  and  the  house  of  Judah ; 
not  such  a  covenant  as  he  made  with  their  fathers ;  but 
his  law  he  would  put  in  their  inward  parts  and  write  it 
in  their  hearts  (xxxi.  32).  The  idea  of  covenant  and 
law,  that  is,  are  with  him  interchangeable,  inseparable. 
To  a  Jewish  mind,  in  fact,  the  one  involved  the  other 
as  truly  as  the  idea  of  a  sacrificer  involved  that  of 
a  sacrifice  and  an  altar. 

But  it  is  said  that  the  earlier  prophets  show  decided 
opposition  to  the  offering  of  sacrifices  in  themselves 
considered,  and  therefore  they  cannot  have  known  and 
acknowledged  this  Levitical  code  which  prescribes 
them  and  contains  the  ritual  by  which  they  were  after- 
ward to  be  governed.  If  such  a  claim  were  not  made 
by  men  of  learning  and  responsible  positions  we  could 
hardly  regard  it  as  seriously  meant.  On  its  face  it 
appears  to  us  as  nothing  less  than  preposterous. 

Does  Samuel  show  opposition  to  sacrifices  when  he 
says  to  the  impatient  and  recreant  Saul :  "  To  obey  is 
better  than  sacrifice,  and  to  hearken  than  the  fat  of 
rams"  (i  Sam.  xv.  22)  .?  No  more  does  Hosea  when,  in 
rebuke  of  gross  excesses  of  externalism,  he  declares  as 
the  mind  of  the  Lord  :  "  For  I  desired  mercy,  and  not 
sacrifice ;  and  the  knowledge  of  God  more  than  burnt- 
offerings  "  (vi,  6).     There  are  no  texts  better  adapted 


TJie  Lazv  and  the  Prophets.  311 

than  these  to  illustrate  the  uniform  attitude  of  the 
prophets  in  all  periods  of  Israelitish  history  toward 
animal  sacrifices.  What  they  opposed  was  misdirec- 
tion, degenerating  into  absolute  idolatry.  It  was  an 
effort  at  prayer  without  a  consecration  of  the  will.  It 
was  a  perverse  tendency  to  look  upon  sacrifice  as  an 
opus  operatnni,  something  in  itself  sufficient  for  their 
spiritual  needs. 

To  enjoin  the  people  to  bring  their  offerings  was 
wholly  needless.  To  interdict  it  would  have  been  as 
futile  as  to  interdict  the  dews  from  gathering  on 
Lebanon.  What  they  did  properly  seek  to  do  was  to 
insist  on  the  spiritual  significance  of  these  solemn 
rites ;  to  persuade  men  that  the  form  without  the 
substance  was  not  only  rubbish,  but  might  be  even 
a  stench  in  the  nostrils.  Just  as  a  minister  of  our  day 
might  say  to  men  who  offer  their  means  for  the  spread 
of  the  gospel  and  the  support  of  its  institutions  while 
personally  standing  aloof  from  it :  "  It  is  not  your  money 
we  want,  but  you."  Just  as  the  apostle  Paul  actually 
said  to  his  Corinthian  sympathizers  under  similar  cir- 
cumstances :  "I  seek  not  yours,  but  you"  (2  Cor.  xii. 
14).  So  these  men  of  God  in  the  olden  time  in  the 
midst  of  a  tendency  to  pure  exteriority,  to  exaggerate 
the  matter  of  the  flesh  and  blood  of  their  offerings  until 
they  were  made  to  represent  everything  in  religion 
and,  at  the  same  time,  to  excuse  everything  in  irre- 
ligion  and  idolatry,  found  no  language  but  that  of 
hyperbole  that  met  the  case.^ 

1  It  was  not  formalism  alone  nor  idolatry  alone  that  the  earlier  prophets  opposed,  but 
both  together,  and  especially  the  latter  as  a  direct  fruit  of  the  former.  So  Delitzsch,  in 
speaking  of  the  schism  of  Jeroboam  II.  {^Old  Testament  History  of  Redemption 
p.  105  f.),  truly  says:  "  For  out  of  dynastic  considerations  Jeroboam  sought  to  perpetuate 
the  independence  of  his  dominions  by  destroying  the  religious  unity  of  both  kingdoms, 
and  by  introducing  a  new  mode  of  worship,  which,  without  cutting  loose  from  Jehovah, 
met  the  heathen  lusts  and  Egyptian  propensities  of  the  masses  through  the  choice  of  a 


3 1 2        The  Pentatciic]i :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Do  you  think  God  hungry  ?  Will  he  eat  the  flesh  of 
bulls  or  drink  the  blood  of  goats  ?  said  the  Psalmist,  in 
view  of  a  similar  perverseness  (1.  13  ;  cf.  xl.  7-10).  No 
stronger  language  is  found  in  any  prophet  on  this  sub- 
ject than  in  Isaiah.^  He  compares  the  sacrifice  of  a 
lamb  to  the  cutting  off  the  neck  of  a  dog,  and  in 
the  same  passage  puts  the  offering  of  an  oblation  on 
the  same  level  with  the  presentation  of  the  blood  of 
swine  (Ixvi.  3).  He  cannot  mean  to  reject  and  cast 
obloquy  upon  sacrifices  themselves  ;  for  he  elsewhere 
represents  them  as  praiseworthy  and  to  be  desired  (xix. 
19).  In  the  very  context,  he  indulges,  as  here,  in  the 
language  of  strong  hyperbole.  "  Where  is  the  house," 
he  asks,  as  representative  of  the  Highest,  "that  ye 
will  build  for  me "  (Ixvi.  i,  2)}  Was  he  therefore 
an  opponent  of  an  outward  temple  .-*  And  in  another 
place  (i.  12,  13):  "Who  hath  required  this  at  your 
hands,  to  tread  my  courts  .■*  Bring  no  more  vain 
oblations ;    incense  is  an  abomination  unto  me." 

Is  this  to  be  taken  as  prosy  literalness  t  Then,  in 
the  same  breath  that  the  prophet  discourages  outward 
offerings  and  sacrifices  he  also  favors  the  closing  of  the 
tem^Dle  gates  against  his  apostate  countrymen.  There 
is  no  argument  to  prove  the  one  which  will  not  just  as 
really  prove  the  other. 

Jeremiah,  also,  uses  language  on  this  point  which  is 
scarcely  less  emphatic.     "  To  what  purpose,"  he  asks 

symbol  derived  from  the  Egyptian  steer-god,  and  flattered  the  Ephraimitic  national  pride  by 
the  choice  of  ancient  places  celebrated  through  the  great  national  reminiscences  connected 
with  them  (i  Kings  xii.  26  sqq. ;  Amos  iv.  4;  v.  5;  viii.  14;  Hosea  iv.  15).  This  syn- 
cretistic  state  religion  (Amos  vii.  10,  13),  with  its  self-created  priesthood  and  its  servile, 
fawning  prophets,  is  considered  by  the  prophets  of  Jehovah  in  both  kingdoms  as  an 
accursed  apostasy;  and  so  every  fraternization  of  the  kings  of  Judah  with  the  kings  of 
Israel  excites  the  displeasure  of  the  prophets,  even  when  it  is  favorable  to  the  interests  of 
the  kingdom  of  Judah."     Cf  also  Smend,  Stud.  u.  Kritiken,  1876,  pp.  6oi,  602,  606. 

'  If  our  critics'  theory  were  true,  one  might  expect,  as  Bredenkamp  has  shown  {ibid. 
p.  78  f.),  to  find  in  Amos  and  Hosea  the  most  marked  antithesis  noted  between  outward 
offerings  and  inward  piety  rather  than  in  Isaiah,  Micah,  and  Jeremiah. 


TJic  Latv  and  the  Prophets.  3 1 3 

in  one  place,  "  is  there  brought  to  me  incense  from 
Sheba  and  sweet  cane  from  a  far  country  ?  Your  burnt- 
offerings  are  not  acceptable,  nor  your  sacrifices  sweet, 
unto  me"  (vi.  19,  20).  When  we  consider  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  that  a  wretched  reliance  on  altar- 
gifts  had  in  his  day  gone  so  far  and  been  so  mixed  with 
idolatrous  conceptions  and  practices  that  every  city  had 
its  god,  every  street  its  shrine  (xi.  13),  and  that  a  king 
of  Israel  in  heathenish  blindness  had  even  ventured  to 
offer  up  his  own  son  (2  Kings  xvi.  3  ;  cf.  Hos.  xiii.  2  ; 
Mic.  vi.  7),  is  it  to  be  wondered  at  that  a  prophet  speak- 
ing in  the  name  of  the  Lord  should  say :  "  Yo2ir  burnt- 
offerings  are  not  acceptable,  nor  yoiir  sacrifices  sweet, 
unto  me  "  ?  Is  it  to  be  wondered  at  that  sometimes 
he  falls  into  the  language  of  hyperbole  or  apparent 
paradox,  so  often  found  needful  by  our  Lord 
himself  ? 

How  poor  a  vehicle  is  human  speech  at  the  best  to 
carry  to  human  hearts  the  inspired  utterances  of  a 
prophet  of  God !  It  seems  sometimes  to  stagger  with 
the  weight  that  is  put  upon  it.  The  words  come  forth 
bursting  and  out  of  order.  And  how  utterly  tame  and 
inconsequent  must  the  communications  of  a  Jeremiah 
and  an  Isaiah  have  appeared  even  to  us,  if  in  circum- 
stances like  theirs  they  had  only  prosily  stated  just 
what  our  critics  require  of  them. 

That  Jeremiah  was  no  opponent  of  sacrifices  when 
properly  offered  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  elsewhere  he 
speaks  of  them  as  the  crowning  blessing  of  a  happier 
day  (xxxiii.  18,  21).  How  could  he  have  been  opposed 
to  sacrifices .-'  He  was  himself  a  priest.  More  than 
this,  he  was  contemporary  and  coadjutor  of  the  very 
King  Josiah  in  whose  reign,  according  to  our  critics, 
the  code  of  Deuteronomy  with  its  provisions  for  every 


3 1 4       The  PcntaiciicJi  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

form    of    animal-offerings    was    foisted    on    a    heedless 
people. 

We  find,  indeed,  no  other  spirit,  touching  ritual 
observances,  ruling  in  any  of  these  earlier  prophecies 
than  precisely  that  which  dominates  in  those  that 
follow  the  exile,  when,  as  it  is  supposed,  the  "  Code 
of  the  Priests"  came  to  fullest  bloom.  Zechariah,  for 
examjjle,  made  his  appeal  to  these  very  men  when  a 
deputation  from  Bethel  came  to  ask  if  fasting  were  still 
pleasing  to  God  :  "  (Do  ye)  not  (know),"  he  pertinently 
inquires,  "the  word  which  Jehovah  hath  proclaimed 
by  means  of  the  former  proj^hets,  when  Jerusalem  was 
inhabited  and  in  prosperity }  " 

"So  declareth  Jehovah  of  hosts,  saying: 
Judgment  ot  truth  judge  ye. 
And  mercy  and  compassion 
Do  ye  each  to  his  brother." 

(vii.  9 ;  cf.  Isa.  Iviii.  3  ff.).  And  Haggai  takes  greatest 
pains  to  show  (ii.  11-14)  that  it  is  the  ethical  relation 
of  the  people  to  God  that  is  vital.  Consistency, 
consistency  was  his  demand.  Not  alone  holy  flesh  and 
punctilious  conformity  to  sacerdotal  rites ;  but  clean 
hands  and  a  loyal  heart.  And  Malachi,  who  closes  up 
with  great  announcements  and  ringing  appeals  the 
goodly  line  of  the  ancient  prophets  of  Israel,  but 
reflects  in  this  respect  with  undiminished  splendor  the 
spirit  of  all  who  had  gone  before  him.  Suddenly  the 
Lord  who  was  longed  for  would  come  to  his  temple. 
But  who  could  abide  the  day  of  his  coming  ?  He  would 
appear  as  a  refiner's  fire.  He  would  purge  the  sons  of 
Levi  as  gold  and  silver,  that  their  offerings  to  the  Lord 
should  be  offerings  of  righteousness ;  that  Judah  and 
Jerusalem  should  bring  sacrifices  that  would  be  pleasant 


The  Law  and  the  Prophets.  3 1 5 

to  the  Lord  "  as  in  t/ie  days  of  old^  and  as  in  former 
years"   (iii.   1-4).^ 

Is  anything  more  needed  to  show  what  was  the 
unchanging  attitude  of  the  Israelitish  prophets  in  every 
period  with  respect  to  the  development  of  religious 
life  among  the  people  ?  The  writer  of  Deuteronomy 
represents  it  as  well  as  an  Amos  or  an  Isaiah  when  he 
says  (x.  12):  "And  now,  Israel,  what  doth  thy  God 
require  of  thee  but  to  fear  the  Lord  thy  God,  to  walk 
in  all  his  ways,  and  to  love  him,  and  to  serve  the  Lord 
thy  God  with  all  thy  heart  and  with  all  thy  soul  ? " 
Above  all  He  represents  it,  who  came  as  the  last  and 
greatest  of  the  prophets,  and  who  said,  in  sharp  rebuke 
of  the  spurious  ceremonialism  of  his  day,  jDutting  its 
true  interpretation  on  that  now  disputed  text  of  Hosea  : 
"  Go  and  learn  what  that  meaneth  :  I  will  have  mercy, 
and  not  sacrifice." 

'  So,  too,  the  Son  of  Sirach,  in  obvious  dependence  on  the   prophets   and  psalms, 
although  living  in  the  pent-up  atmosphere  of  the  later  Judaism  (Ecclus.  xxxv.  1-12)  :  — 
"  He  that  keepeth  the  law  bringeth  many  offerings. 

He  that  taketh  heed  to  the  commandment  offereth  a  thank-offering. 

He  that  requiteth  a  good  turn  offereth  fine  flour, 

And  he  that  giveth  alms  sacrificeth  praise. 

To  depart  from  wickedness  is  a  thing  pleasing  to  the  Lord, 

And  to  depart  from  unrighteousness  is  a  propitiation. 

Thou  shalt  not  appear  empty  before  the  Lord, 

For  all  these  things  are  done  because  of  the  commandment. 

The  offering  of  a  just  man  maketh  the  altar  fat. 

And  the  sweet  saver  thereof  is  before  the  Most  High. 

The  sacrifice  of  a  just  man  is  acceptable, 

And  the  memorial  thereof  shall  not  be  forgotten. 

Give  the  Lord  his  honor  with  a  friendly  eye. 

And  diminish  not  the  first-fruits  of  thine  hands. 

In  all  thy  gifts  show  a  cheerful  countenance. 

And  dedicate  thy  tithes  with  gladness. 

Give  unto  the  Most  High  according  as  he'hath  given. 

And  as  thou  hast  gotten,  give  with  a  friendly  eye. 

For  the  Lord  is  rccompcnser. 

And  will  give  thee  seven  times  as  much. 

Do  not  think  to  corrupt  with  gifts,  for  such  he  will  not  receive; 

And  trust  not  to  unrighteous  sacrifices. 

For  the  Lord  is  judge. 

And  with  him  is  no  respect  of  persons." 

\ 


3i6       The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

What  more  natural  than  that  these  grand  old  prophets, 
if  so  be  that  they  were  true  prophets  of  God,  standing 
firm  where  priests  and  people  had  fallen  away,  should 
do  this  very  work  ?  That  they  should  see  and  should 
hold  up  the  spiritual  side  of  the  Mosaic  laws  and 
institutions,  insist  upon  it,  emphasize  it,  and  all  the 
more  because  of  the  enormous  exaggeration  of  the 
merely  outward  by  their  contemporaries  ?  Like  every- 
thing else  in  this  world  of  ours  that  has  lived  and  made 
itself  felt,  the  progress  of  the  Israelitish  religion  was 
never  in  straight  lines  of  growth,  but  always  by  a  kind 
of  action  and  reaction  ;  revealing  mighty  underlying 
forces  that  pushed  it  onward,  but  also  other  forces,  only 
less  mighty,  that  pushed  it  backward  —  a  sort  of  systole 
and  diastole  that  ever  marks  the  throbbings  of  a  deeper 
life  in  human  affairs. 

And  is  not  this  fact  that  the  prophets  did  the  work 
they  did,  and  stood  together  to  do  it,  shoulder  to 
shoulder,  the  shaggy  Elijah  and  the  tender  Hosea  of 
Israel  beside  Amos  and  the  great  Isaiah  of  Judah, 
politically  divided,  but  one  in  aim  and  one  in  spirit 
against  an  intractable  nation  of  formalists  and  idolaters, 
the  strongest  proof  that  they  were  specially,  super- 
naturally  moved  of  God  so  to  do  ?  Does  it  not  carry 
in  itself  the  clearest  condemnation  of  that  theory  of 
the  merely  natural  development  of  the  Old  Testament 
religion  which  our  critics  would  persuade  us  to  adopt  ?^ 

I  It  is  not  so  easy  to  see  how,  on  any  just  principle  of  development,  the  matter  is 
helped  for  these  critics  by  the  supposition  of  a  climax  of  spirituality  in  the  prophets,  and 
of  sacerdotalism  in  the  age  that  follo^yed  them.  We  might  justly  expect  rather,  first,  that 
which  is  natural,  then  that  which  is  spiritual.  The  remark  of  Smend  still  remains  true, 
whatever  his  present  attitude  toward  this  theory  may  be  {ibid.  p.  638) :  "  Schon  hienach 
mochten  wir  die  Bemerkung  Duhms,  dass  die  Prophetic  abgestorben  sei,  als  durch  Esra 
das  Gesetz  in's  Leben  trat,  dahin  umkehren,  dass  das  Gesetz  kanonische  Geltung  erhielt, 
weil  die  Prophetie  abstarb."  Just  in  this  direction,  too,  points  that  relatively  isolated 
text  in  the  Book  of  Proverbs  (xxix.  18) :  "  Where  there  is  no  vision  the  people  are  in 
disorder;  but  he  that  keepeth  the  law,  happy  is  he," 


The  Law  and  the  Prophets.  3 1 7 

And  so,  without  resorting  to  any  of  the  numerous 
collateral  arguments  which  might  be  urged  against  the 
theory  we  have  been  considering,  like  the  uniform  testi- 
mony of  the  oldest  witnesses  and  the  repeated  confirm- 
atory references  of  Jesus  and  his  apostles ;  without 
calling  special  attention  to  the  wholesale  dislocations, 
eliminations,  conjectural  readings,  and  charges  of 
duplicity  against  Old  Testament  writers  which  would 
be  necessitated  by  the  change  proposed ;  without 
taking  advantage  of  the  naive  admissions  of  some  of 
the  ablest  of  this  class  of  critics  showing  that  their 
objections  to  the  traditional  view,  after  all,  inhere  less 
in  the  documents  themselves  than  in  their  own  minds 
and  their  own  invincible  prepossessions,^  we  find  that, 
tested  by  the  reasoning  on  which  its  supporters  them- 
selves most  rely,  this  concerted  effort  to  face  about  the 
preexilian  prophets  and  reconstruct  on  other  principles 
the  history  of  Israel  is  a  signal  failure. 

1  As,  for  instance,  Wellhausen  {Geschichte,\.  p.  ii):  "Passages  out  of  Amos  and 
Hosea  may  be  adduced  which  are  supposed  to  show  acquaintance  with  the  '  Code  of  the 
Priests';  upon  him,  however,  who  holds  them  to  be  earlier  than  it,  they  can  make  no 
impression."  And  Stade  (as  quoted  by  Professor  Duff  in  Xhe.  Bilih'otkeca  Sacra,  1882,  p. 
392)  :  "  But  I  am  convinced  that  the  controversy  will  never  be  settled  by  an  analysis  of 
the  Pentateuch.  The  view  taken  of  the  Pentateuch  will  depend,  on  the  one  hand,  on  the 
view  taken  of  the  critical  structure  of  the  Books  of  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings;  and  on 
the  other,  on  the  theological  valuation  of  prophecy. 


IX. 

THE  LAW  AND  THE  HISTORICAL  BOOKS. 


If  the  Books  of  Chronicles  were  admitted  to  be 
genuine  and  authentic,  the  criticism  that  makes  a  con- 
siderable part  of  the  Pentateuch  of  post-exilian  origin 
would,  by  its  own  admission,  be  impossible.  These 
books  assume  the  existence  in  every  period  of  the 
history  of  this  same  supposed  post-exilian  portion  ;  that 
is,  especially,  the  so-called  "  Code  of  the  Priests." 
Their  account  of  David's  reign  and  that  of  his  suc- 
cessors down  to  the  point  where  the  Book  of  Ezra 
takes  up  and  continues  the  narrative  is  particularly 
characterized  by  the  dominance  of  Levitical  institutions 
and  laws.  Among  the  long  lists  of  genealogies  with 
which  the  history  is  introduced,  that  of  the  tribe  of 
Levi  is  given  a  noteworthy  prominence.'-  David's 
recovery  of  the  ark  and  the  imposing  ceremonies 
attending  its  introduction  into  Jerusalem  require  not 
less  than  three  crowded  chapters  of  description  and  they 
are  fortified  by  dates,  extended  lists  of  proper  names, 
and  even  the  form  of  service  observed  on  the  occasion 
(i  Chron.  xiii.,  xv.,  xvi.).  Four  other  chapters  are 
devoted  to  the  classification  of  the  Levites  and  their 
assignment  to  appropriate  duties  in  the  temple  service 
(i  Chron.  xxiii.-xxvi.).      In  one  instance  (2  Chron.  vii. 

^  "  Ueberall,"  says  Wellhausen,  Geschichte,  i.  p.  223,  "  wird  vorausgesetzt,  dass 
Israel  wahrend  der  ganzen  Konigzeit  nach  den  zwolf  Stammen  organisirt  gawesen  sei; 
bekanxuich  ist  dlese  Voraussetzung  grundfalsch." 


The  Law  and  the  Historical  Books.  3 19 

7-9)  a  direct  effort  seems  to  be  made  to  harmonize 
a  statement  of  the  earlier  history  (i  Kings  viii.  65  f.) 
with  the  Mosaic  law  of  the  feast  of  tabernacles. 

It  is  generally  recognized,  indeed,  that  a  chief  aim  of 
the  compiler  of  Chronicles  was  no  other  than  to  direct 
special  attention  to  such  periods  and  events  in  Israel- 
itish  history  as  would  best  illustrate  the  ceremonial  lazv 
and  show  what  benefits  had  arisen  from  such  obser- 
vance. And  the  one  circumstance  that  here  chiefly 
distinguishes  the  partisans  of  Graf  and  Wellhausen 
from  other  scholars  is  that  they  regard  this  aim  as 
inconsistent  with  a  truthful  narrative  ;  look  upon  the 
history  in  so  far  as  it  has  this  coloring  and  is  controlled 
by  this  purpose  as  pure  fabrication.  They  not  only 
assert  this  in  every  form  of  emphatic  declaration,  but 
carry  it  to  the  point  of  a  contemptuous  depreciation  and 
ridicule  of  the  Chronicler.^  It  is  as  precarious  a  pro- 
cedure from  a  logical  point  of  view  as,  we  believe,  it  is 
unjustified  by  the  contents  of  the  books. 

It  is  well  known  that  a  principal  reason  given  for 
denying  the  existence  of  the  ceremonial  law  previous 
to  the  exile  is  the  alleged  silence  of  the  historical  books 
concerning  it.  But  here  is  a  book  that  is  full  of  refer- 
ences to  this  law,  makes  it  a  direct  object  to  emphasize 
and  honor  it,  and  so  restores  the  imperiled  balance  of 
the  biblical  narrative.  It  provides  the  information  we 
were  looking  for. 

The  first  intimation  of  the  existence  of  the  planet 
Neptune  came  through  the  observed  perturbations  of 

•  "  Die  Chronik  dagegen  legt  das  Gesetz  —  und  zwar  im  vollen  Umfange  das  ganze  pen- 
tateuchische  Gesetz,  namcntlich  den  darin  dominirendeii  Priestercodex  —  nicht  bloss  ihrem 
Urteil  iiberdie  Vergangenheit  z\\  Grunde  sondcrn  diclitet  aiich  die  Thatsachen  in  jcne 
von  jeher  gultige  Norm  um  und  denkt  sich  das  alte  hebraischc  Volk  gcnau  nacli  dem 
Muster  der  spateren  jiidischen  Gemeinde,  als  einheitlich  geglicderte  Hierokratie,  mit 
einem  streng  centralizirtcn  Cultus  von  uniformer  Legitimitat  an  der  heiligen  Stattc  zu 
Jerusalem."  —  See  Wellhausen,  ibid.  p.  197. 


320        The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

its  companion  planets.  And  mathematical  reckonings, 
on  the  basis  of  heaven's  first  law  of  order,  won  their 
secret  from  the  stars.  So  here,  the  Old  Testament 
history  were  an  enigma  unless  Samuel  and  the  Kings 
have  their  complement  in  Chronicles.  It  must  be  a 
very  convincing  argument,  therefore,  and  one  untainted 
by  the  suspicion  of  ulterior  aims,  that  can  impeach  the 
authority  of  so  opportune  and  reasonable  a  book. 

To  say  that  an  historian  cannot  have  a  special  point 
of  view  and  yet  confine  himself  to  facts  is  surely  absurd. 
To  write  history  with  a  purely  didactic  purpose,  singling 
out  events  and  characters  best  subserving  that  purpose, 
is  as  legitimate  an  aim  as  any  other.  What  higher  use 
can  history  have  than  to  instruct  us .-'  In  itself  it 
involves  no  distortion  of  the  truth  to  display  its  different 
aspects,  as,  for  example,  the  four  evangelists  have  done 
in  their  fourfold  narrative  of  the  life  of  Jesus  Christ. 
And  that  the  Chronicler,  in  view  of  the  lack  of  promi- 
nence given  to  the  ceremonial  law  in  other  histories  of 
Israel,  current  then  and  since,  should  deliberately  set 
out  with  the  object  of  supplementing  them  in  this 
respect  is  not  only  extremely  natural,  but  it  is  highly 
creditable  to  his  judgment. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  work  he  produced  is 
based  on  original  written  documents,  since  he  quotes 
them  by  name.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  from  a  merely 
historical  standpoint,  ecclesiasticism  aside,  his  book  is 
of  immense  value.  Many  are  the  missing  links  which 
we  discover  in  his   pages.^     Especially  as  it  concerns 

'  "  He  alone  relates  Asa's  war  with  Zerah  the  Ethiopian  (2  Chron.  xiv. ) ,  the  invasion  of 
Jerusalem  by  hordes  of  Philistines  and  Arabians  in  the  time  of  Jehoram  (2  Chron.  xxi. 
16  ff.,  important  for  the  understanding  of  Obadiah,  Joel,  and  Amos),  the  details  of  the 
attack  made  upon  Judah  by  leagued  Syrians  and  Ephraimites  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  5,  16  f.), 
the  victory  of  Jehosaphat  over  the  allied  neighboring  peoples  (i  Chron.  xx.,  important 
for  the  history  of  the  Psalms).  Through  him  we  have  fuller  information  respecting 
Ziklag  and  Hebron  as  the  starting-places  of  David's  dominion  (i  Chron.  xi.,  xiL).     And 


TJie  Lazv  and  the  Historical  Books.  3^1 

our  knowledge  of  the  prophets,  of  whom  we  have  so 
little  information  from  any  quarter,  is  his  work  of  rare 
significance.  Six  of  these  devoted  men,  Oded,  Azariah, 
Hanani,  Jahaziel  son  of  Zechariah,  Eliezer  son  of 
Dodavah,  Zechariah  son  of  Jehoida,  and  their  vast 
influence  on  the  affairs  of  their  times  would  be 
otherwise  quite  unknown  to  us.^ 

One-sided,  as  it  may  be  called,  largely  subjective  in 
character,  stamped  with  the  spirit  and  phraseology  of 
a  later  day,  even  sometimes  tinged  with  extravagance 
and  hyperbole  in  its  style,  as  every  candid  reader  must 
acknowledge,  the  work  of  the  Chronicler  is,  notwith- 
standing, a  faithful  documentary  record.  The  discre- 
pancies and  contradictions  which  have  been  charged 
against  it  may  be  readily  explained  from  the  peculiar 
point  of  view  of  the  compiler,  or,  in  the  case  of 
numbers  and  the  like,  from  corruptions  in  the  text.  In 
short,  over  against  the  strained  efforts  and  uncritical 
insinuations  of  Wellhausen,  it  will  suffice  to  place  the 
recent  opinion  of  August  Dillmann,  who  will  not  be 
suspected  of  being  governed  by  the  exigencies  of  a 
theory.  "  Chronicles,"  he  says,^  "is  thoroughly  reliable 
history,  being  drawn  from  the  official  records  of  the 
Israelites,  which  explains  the  numerous  instances  in 
which  it  coincides,  even  verbally,  with  Kings ;  and 
where  it  differs  in  names,  etc.,  can  be  explained  by 
textual  corruptions  either  in  Chronicles,  Kings,  or 
their  common  source.  But  the  point  of  view  is  priestly, 
and  therefore  the  author  dwells  at  greater  length  upon 
those  features  of  the  history  which  are  ecclesiastical. 
.  .  .  The  object  of  the  writer  was  not  so  much  to  retell 

of  all  that  the  better  kings  did  for  the  cult,  for  popular  instruction,  for  the  administration 
of  justice  and  the  defence  of  the  empire,  the  knowledge  derived  from  the  Chronicles  u 
incomparably  greater  than  from  the  Books  of  Samuel  and  Kings."  —  Franz  DeliUsch,  in 
the  Sunday-School  Times  for  November  24,  1883. 

1  Cf.  Delitzsch,  ibid.  -  Herzog's  Encyk.,  ate  Aufl.,  s.v.  "  Chronik." 


322        The  Peiitate2ich:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

the  story  of  Israel,  as,  from  the  rich  historical  stores  at 
his  command,  to  select  those  portions  which  related 
more  particularly  to  the  history  of  worship,  in  order  to 
demonstrate  to  his  compatriots  how  precious  this  legacy 
was,  and  how  fundamental  to  the  existence  and  pros- 
perity of  the  new  state  arising  from  the  ashes  of  the 
old."  1 

But  let  the  argument  from  Chronicles,  decisive  as  it 
must  be  regarded,  be  for  the  present  waived  ;  the 
remaining  historical  books,  without  the  support  of  that 
one  which  seems  to  have  been  especially  charged  with 
the  service,  offer  sufficient  evidence  that  they  were 
antedated  by  all  the  Pentateuch  codes  in  all  their 
essential  features. 

Attention  is  invited,  in  the  first  place,  to  the  peculiar 
moral  atmosphere  in  which  the  history  moves  and  its 
one  invariable  point  of  view.  It  is  the  more  significant 
that,  to  such  an  extent,  it  must  be  recognized  as  an 
environment,  something  that  cannot  be  accounted  for 
simply  by  the  letter  of  the  text,  that  cannot  be  con- 
jured away  by  changes  in  the  text.  Just  as,  for 
example,  in  the  history  of  our  own  country  written 
subsequent  to  the  Revolution,  or  the  civil  conflict  of 
twenty  years  ago,  one  might  expect  to  find  a  tacit 
recognition  of  these  overshadowing  events  in  the  point 
of  view  of  a  writer  of  later  American  history,  a  tone 
and  spirit  discovering  itself  in  the  %vay  he  writes, 
though  never  definitely  expressed  in  %vJiat  Jte  ivrites  ; 
so  in  the  history  of  Israel,  we  may  look  for  something 
answering  to  this  after  such  momentous  national  crises 
as  the  giving  of  the  Law  and  the  subsequent  entrance 
of   Israel    as    a    commonwealth    of    priests    upon    the 

1  Cf.  Strack,  in  Zockler's  Handbuch,  etc.  p.  163,  and  Brown,  in  the  Andover  RevieiB 
for  April,  1884,  "  The  Books  of  Chronicles,"  etc. 


The  Law  and  the  Historical  Boohs,  323 

promised  possession  of  Canaan.  And  we  shall  not 
look  in  vain. 

Observe  the  general  plan  on  which  the  Books  of 
Judges,  Samuel,  and  the  Kings  were  conceived  and 
constructed  as  a  whole.  They  are  closely  connected 
histories.  First  Samuel  begins  where  the  Book  of 
Judges  leaves  off,  and  evidently  the  choice  and  shaping 
of  the  material  of  the  former  book  were  with  definite 
reference  to  the  latter,  to  which  it  appears  as  a  sequel. 
The  same  is  true  of  the  Books  of  Kings  in  relation  to 
Samuel.  There  is  a  clear  purpose  and  a  unity  of 
purpose  throughout.  Like  the  plant  that  takes  its  pre- 
destined shape  while  the  law  and  forces  of  its  growth 
are  out  of  sight,  the  material  of  these  books  assumed 
its  present  form,  both  in  general  and  particular,  in 
obedience  to  certain  fixed  ideas  which  are  presupposed 
rather  than  announced  ;  or,  are  largely  presupposed  as 
well  as,  now  and  then,  announced.  An  impression  is 
carried  along  from  chapter  to  chapter  which  is  as  real 
as  the  aroma  of  a  flower  and  almost  as  intangible. 

It  is  something  of  which  the  historian  assumes  his 
readers  to  be  as  conscious  as  he  himself  is.  His  tone 
is  never  apologetic.  His  object  is  never  entertainment. 
He  seems  always  to  state  facts  with  a  view  to  enforcing 
them.  The  narrative  is  in  no  case  a  bare  record  of 
events.  It  is  pragmatical,  didactic  throughout.  Just 
like  the  Book  of  Genesis  and  only  in  a  less  degree 
just  like  the  Books  of  Chronicles,  it  is  made  use  of  as 
the  channel  for  a  higher  truth,  which,  after  all,  is  under- 
stood to  be  the  principal  truth.  To  fa'.l  to  recognize 
this,  indeed,  woulil  be  to  lose  the  key  to  the  history. 
One  may  call  it  an  ethical  coloring,  or  a  theocratic  bias, 
or  what  he  will,  but  the  influence  is  always  there.  It 
makes  the    impression    upon    us  of  something   like    a 


324       TJic  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

judicial  process.  The  historian  is  giving  in  his 
testimony.  To  hear  it  is  to  decide  at  once  upon  its 
bearing.! 

Israel  appears  everywhere  as  the  one  chosen  people 
sustaining  peculiar  relations  to  Jehovah  and  owing  him 
peculiar  duties.  There  is  a  solidarity  of  interests  and 
of  responsibility.  A  common  and  universal  obligation 
is  recognized.  A  silent  appeal  is  taken  to  an  assumed 
standard.  Each  new  character  as  he  appears  is  faith- 
fully judged  by  it,  and  finds  his  place  accordingly  among 
the  noble  or  ignoble  of  the  historic  line. 

How  emphatically  is  this  true  in  the  lives  of 
Samuel,  Saul,  and  David  and  the  story  of  their  mutual 
relationships !  The  weightier  factor  in  their  histories 
.is  the  one  out  of  sight.  No  handwriting  on  the  wall  is 
needed  to  inform  us  of  the  first  king  of  Israel  that  he 
has  been  weighed  in  the  balances  and  found  wanting. 
There  is  a  line  of  conduct  that  is  at  once  felt  to  be  con- 
sonant with  the  principles  that,  from  beginning  to  end, 
govern  in  the  composition.  There  is  another  line  of 
conduct,  and  it  may  be  even  the  prevailing  one,  that  is 
felt  to  be  out  of  harmony  with  those  principles,  betrays 
a  hateful  dissonance  not  only  with  them,  but  with  what 
are  supposed  to  be  the  better  sympathies  of  the  reader. 

But,  as  I  have  said,  we  are  not  left  simply  to  infer 
what  the  point  of  view  of  these  books  is,  most  impor- 
tant as  that  which  is  to  be  inferred  from  their  structure 
and  uniform  coloring  must  be  regarded  in  our  discus- 
sion ;  it  is  also  written  boldly  out  in  the  history  and 
even  defined  by  positive  statements.     And  though  such 

*  Cf.  Conder,  The  Origin  of  the  Hebreiu  Religion,  p.  13  f.:  "  The  feature  of  the 
Old  Testament  we  have  been  considering  is  not  peculiar  to  Genesis  or  to  the  Pentateuch. 
It  pervades  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  It  is  not  that  history  is  tiiade  the  ?nediu»i  oj 
religious  instruction.  That  would  be  a  most  narrow  and  mistaken  view  of  the  matter.  It 
is  that  religion  is  shown  as  the  soul  of  history ;  the  supreme  reality  and  central  power  in 
humaa  affairs;  the  deepest  foundation  of  human  life." 


The  Law  and  the  Historical  Books.  325 

statements  may  be  relatively  few,  like  the  particles  of 
iron  in  the  spring,  the  whole  current  of  the  narrative 
has  been  impregnated  and  tinctured  by  them.  The 
Book  of  Judges,  for  example,  opens  with  a  detailed 
review  of  the  causes  that  produced  the  desperate  state 
of  things  it  is  led  to  describe ;  why  after  Moses  and 
Joshua  there  should  arise  such  men  as  Jcphthah 
and  Samson ;  after  organization  and  law,  misrule 
and  anarchy.  There  had  been  wholesale  defection.  A 
o^eneration  had  arisen  which  "  knew  not  the  Lord  nor 
yet  the  works  which  he  had  done  for  Israel  "  (Judges 
ii.  10).  There  are,  naturally,  tribal  difficulties.  Evi- 
dences of  a  very  imperfect  civilization  are  not  sup- 
pressed. The  great  mistake  and  the  great  crime, 
however,  is  everywhere  stamped  as  apostasy.  The 
people,  it  is  true,  are  not  disintegrated  altogether. 
Sometimes  they  even  act  as  the  "  congregation  of  the 
Lord"  in  the  spirit  of  the  Mosaic  institutions  (Judges 
xix.-xxi.)  ;  but  the  leaven  of  transgression  had  every- 
where left  its  mark.  They  had  forsaken,  it  is  said, 
"  the  Lord  God  of  their  fathers  who  brought  them  out 
of  the  land  of  Egypt"  (ii.  12).  They  had  "provoked" 
the  Lord  and  his  anger  was  hot  against  them.  They 
had  "  turned  out  of  the  way  "  in  which  their  fathers 
had  walked.  They  "  ceased  not  from  their  own  doing, 
nor  from  their  stubborn  way."  They  had  "transgressed 
the  covenant"  of  God  which  he  had  "commanded  their 
fathers  "  (ii.  passim).  There  can  be  no  doubt,  in  short, 
how  the  writer  of  the  Book  of  Judges  regarded  the 
people  of  Israel  even  in  that  early  age  :  they  were,  in 
his  eyes,  a  race  of  backsliders.  They  had  consciously 
lapsed  from  acknowledged  standards  and  been  faithless 
to  solemn  vows.  And  their  sins  are  with  him  just  as 
much  sins   of  folly  and  wilfulness,  are  painted   every 


326       The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

whit  as  black  as  are  those  of  a  Jeroboam  or  a 
Manasseh  in  the  later  books. 

Moreover,  we  are  not  obliged  to  change  our  position 
as  we  move  down  into  the  Books  of  Samuel  and  the 
Kings.  We  not  only  feel  that  we  are  in  the  same 
atmosphere,  but  whenever  the  history  speaks,  it  is  in 
the  same  ground-tone.  Samuel  succeeds  to  Eli  and  his 
unfaithful  sons,  for  the  alleged  reason  that  they  fall 
below  the  standard  which,  as  they  well  know,  God  has 
set  for  them.  The  warm  friendship  springing  up  at 
first  between  the  prophet  Samuel  and  the  youthful 
king  of  goodly  stature  is  changed  later  to  estrangement, 
not  because  of  merely  personal  differences,  but  because 
of  the  king's  failure  to  respond  to  certain  moral  obliga- 
tions to  which  it  is  assumed  that  prophet  and  king  are 
equally  amenable.  "  And  Samuel  said  unto  Saul, 
'Thou  hast  rejected  the  word  of  the  Lord^  and  the 
Lord  hath  rejected  thee.'  .  .  .  And  Samuel  came  no 
more  to  see  Saul  until  the  day  of  his  death  ;  neverthe- 
less, Samuel  mourned  for  Saul  "  (i  Sam.  xv.  26,  35). 

What  is  it  that  so  sharpens  the  contrast  between  Saul 
and  David,  leads  the  historian  to  dwell  with  evident 
relish  on  some  peculiar  incidents  in  the  latter's  history } 
He  sees  in  him  a  worthier  instrument  of  the  Provi- 
dential purpose.  David  recognizes  a  divine  order  of 
things  in  Israel  and  bows  to  it.  In  his  earliest  public 
appearance  as  the  champion  of  his  brethren  against 
Goliath  his  significant  language  is :  "  Who  is  this 
uncircumcised  Philistine  that  he  should  defy  the  armies 
of  the  living  God  .''  "  And  again,  later  :  "Thou  comest 
to  me  with  a  sword,  and  with  a  spear,  and  with  a  shield  ; 
but  I  come  to  thee  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  of  hosts, 
the  God  of  the  armies  of  Israel  whom  thou  hast  defied  " 

^  The  "  word  of  tke  Lord  "  here,  be  it  observed,  is  in  the  form  of  a  Pentateuch  law  (cf. 
Deut.  XXT.  17-ij). 


TJie  Laxv  and  the  Historical  Books.  327 

(i  Sam.  xvii.  26,  45).  It  is  much  that  this  language 
says ;  it  is  still  more  that  it  suggests. 

So  when  he  flees  from  the  fury  of  Saul,  it  is  to 
Samuel  that  he  resorts  and  unbosoms  himself  (i  Sam. 
xix.  18).  On  another  occasion  it  is  to  the  priest  Abim- 
elech  that  he  escapes  from  the  dangers  that  environ 
him  at  court  (i  Sam.  xxi.  2).  Later,  the  prophet  Gad 
directs  his  flight  (i  Sam.  xxii.  5).  And  in  still  another 
emergency  he  unites  with  his  the  fortunes  of  the  priest 
Abiathar  {ibid.  vs.  20), 

This  power  behind  the  throne  in  Israel,  how  noticea- 
bly it  shows  itself  and  how  sympathetically  throughout 
the  life  of  David !  And  when  led  of  God,  he  finally 
goes  up  to  Hebron  to  be  crowned,  his  first  thought,  as 
king  of  a  reunited  j^eople,  is  for  the  neglected  ark  at 
Kirjath-jearim.  In  his  palace  of  cedar,  too,  and  amidst 
the  almost  ideal  glory  that  crowned  the  closing  period 
of  his  reign  of  forty  years,  it  is  solicitude  for  the  tem- 
ple, the  Deuteronomic  conception  of  a  worthy  sanctuary 
for  the  God  of  Israel,  that  prompts  his  highest  efforts. 

Much  has  been  made  of  the  strong  Davidic  coloring 
which,  as  all  must  acknowledge,  has  been  given  to  these 
standard  histories  of  Samuel  and  the  Kings.  But  in 
no  merely  partisan  import  are  they  Davidic.  There 
breathes  quite  another  spirit  in  them  than  that  of  hero- 
worship.  They  are  Davidic  because  David  was  Israel- 
itic  in  the  historic  and  highest  sense ;  because  he  made 
so  largely  his  goal  that  which,  if  the  history  be  true, 
was  also  the  goal  of  every  godly  priest,  prophet,  and 
loyal  son  of  Abraham,  naturally,  not  excepting  the  one 
who  penned  the  records.  They  are  Davidic  because 
the  David  of  the  history  is  the  David  of  the  Psalter, 
to  whom  "the  statutes  of  the  Lord  are  right,  rejoicing 
the  heart  "  (xix.  9). 

So,  too,  when  the  affairs  of    the  disrupted  kingdom 


328        The  Pentateuch:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

pass  under  review,  we  are  left  in  just  as  little  uncer- 
tainty respecting  the  attitude  of  the  historian.  What- 
ever different  hands  may,  supposably,  from  first  to  last, 
have  been  engaged  on  the  composition,  there  is  but  one 
point  of  view  discoverable  in  its  present  form.  The 
change  of  dynasties,  the  love  or  the  hate  of  kings,  the 
devotion  or  the  disgust  of  a  fickle  people  work  no  alter- 
ation in  that.  To  do  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord  and 
to  do  right  in  his  sight  have  not,  severally,  one  sense  in 
Solomon's  day  and  another  in  Ahab's  or  Josiah's  or 
Zedekiah's.  Whatever  charges  may  be  laid  against  the 
responsible  historian  of  i  and  2  Kings,  a  want  of  con- 
sistency in  his  historical  judgment  concerning  public 
men  and  public  events  cannot  be  made  one  of  them. 
To  the  standard  by  which,  for  example,  he  tries  the 
principles  of  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat,  who  caused 
Israel  to  sin,  he  is  undeviatingly  true  to  the  end. 

With  peculiar  interest  he  seems  to  linger  on  the 
description  of  the  temple  and  the  services  of  dedica- 
tion. He  prefers  to  speak  of  the  life  of  Solomon  when 
it  is  at  its  best  ;  but  he  disguises  nothing.  He  tells 
also  of  his  love  for  strange  women,  his  idolatry  and 
moral  degeneracy.  He  knows  how  to  discriminate  in 
men's  conduct  between  what  is  really  good  and  what  is 
only  relatively  so.  "  Jehoash,"  he  says,  "did  what  was 
right  ^  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord  all  his  days  wherein 
Jehoida  the  priest  instructed  him.  But  the  high-places 
were  not  taken  away"  (2  Kings  xii.  3,  4).  Amaziah 
"  did  what  was  right  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  yet  not 
like  David  his  father  ;  he  did  according  to  all  things  as 
Joash  his  father  did.  But  the  high-places  were  not 
taken  away  "  {ibid.  xiv.  3). 

And  when  the  culmination  of  calamity  finally  comes 

'  This  expression,  so  frequent  in  Kings,  appears  to  be  derived  from  Deuteronomy  (xii 
28;  xiii.  18,  19,  and  often),  and  in  both  books  seems  to  imply  a  legal  standard. 


The  Law  and  the  Historical  Books.  329 

to  the  northern  kingdom,  it  is  only  in  harmony  with  his 
position  from  the  beginning  that  he  makes  it  the 
occasion  for  showing  that  it  is  the  predicted  and 
natural  result  of  forbidden  courses,  the  lightning-stroke 
which  the  people  and  their  rulers  had  themselves  chal- 
lenged. "  In  the  ninth  year  of  Hoshea,  the  king  of 
Assyria  took  Samaria  and  carried  Israel  away  into 
Assyria  "  (2  Kings  xvii.  6).  "  And  it  was  so  because 
the  children  of  Israel  had  sinned  against  the  Lord  their 
God  who  had  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt " 
(vs.  7).  They  "would  not  hear,  but  hardened  their 
necks,  like  the  neck  of  their  fathers"  (vs.  13,  14). 
"  And  they  rejected  his  statutes  and  his  covenant  which 
he  made  with  their  fathers  "  (vs.  15).  "Therefore  the 
Lord  was  very  angry  with  Israel  and  removed  them  out 
of  his  sight :  there  was  none  left  but  the  tribe  of  Judah 
only"  (vs.  18).  And  then,  attesting  his  impartiality, 
proving  that  it  is  from  no  merely  partisan  or  Judaistic 
standpoint  that  he  speaks,  he  frankly  adds  :  "  And 
Judah  kept  not  the  commandents  of  the  Lord  their 
God  ;  but  walked  in  the  statutes  of  Israel  which  they 
made  "  (vs.  19). 

There  is  no  need  of  further  illustration.  No  one 
will  attempt  to  dispute  either  the  uniformity  or  the 
definiteness  of  the  moral  lesson  which  has  been 
emblazoned  on  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. None  can  doubt  what  impression  the  one 
historian,  or  the  historians  many,  meant  to  make,  and 
to  make  powerful  and  deep,  upon  the  Israel  of  their 
time.  The  one  indictment  of  their  countrymen  under 
many  charges  is  for  apostasy ;  the  one  summons 
amidst  a  multitude  of  voiced  or  unvoiced  appeals  along 
the  whole  line  is  to  repentance  and  reform. 

What,  now,  have  the  critics  who  concede  no  written 


330       The  PentateiLch :  Its  Ongin  and  Structure. 

law  to  Israel  before  the  close  of  the  seventh  century  to 
say  concerning  it  ?  It  is  just  what  we  should  expect 
to  find  on  the  supposition,  and  only  on  the  supposition, 
that  something  answering  to  the  alleged  institutions 
of  Moses  arose  in  the  age  of  Moses.  I  do  not  say 
that,  of  itself,  it  proves  their  existence  then  in  their 
present  Pentateuch  form.  For  that  other  facts  will 
be  found  to  vouch.  But  until  itself  disproved,  it  does 
prove  the  reality  of  a  Mosaic  era  and  a  paramount 
Pentateuch  influence,  if  one  may  so  speak,  in  the 
shaping  of  the  historic  Israel.  It  is  safe  to  infer  the 
fountain  from  the  stream.  And  to  the  same  degree, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  serves  to  disprove  the  rise  of 
essential  Mosaism  in  any  period  subsequent  to  that 
which  we  have  passed  in  review. 

The  issue,  therefore,  is  plainly  before  us.  How  is  it 
met  by  the  champions  of  what  is  called  "  scientific  " 
criticism  .-'  Not,  by  any  means,  by  a  denial  of  the  testi- 
mony, at  least  in  its  general  tenor  and  outline.  It  is 
rather  by  an  unwarranted  attack  on  the  character  of  the 
witness.  The  text,  it  is  said,  which  gives  us  these 
results  is  far  from  trustworthy.  Much  of  it  is  purely 
mythical,  especially  that  of  Judges ;  while  the  best  of 
it  is  of  a  composite  character  in  which  old  and  new, 
good  and  bad,  are  everywhere  almost  inextricably 
commingled.  It  is  the  critic,  it  will  be  observed,  the 
advocate,  who  constitutes  himself  also  the  supreme 
judge  to  decide,  at  sight,  what  is  real  and  what  is  false, 
what  is  in  place  and  what  is  out  of  place.  He  asks  for 
no  consensus  of  opinions.  He  quotes  nobody.  He 
expects  his    ex   catJiedrd   judgment    to    be    accepted. ^ 

^Cf.  Dwinell,  in  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  April,  1884,  p.  340  f. :  "  Everything  in  the  histor- 
ical books,  as  we  have  them,  from  the  time  of  Moses  down,  which  conflicts  with  this 
theory,  and  which  intimates  the  necessity  of  one  place  of  worship  or  the  existence  of  a 
()riesthood  as  a  separate  order  from  the  Levites,  is  therefore  summarily  branded  as  of  later 


*  The  Law  and  the  Historical  Books.  331 

He  is  modest  enough,  however  —  or  is  it  some  other 
motive  than  self-distrust  that  prompts  him  ?  —  to 
acknowledge  that  sometimes  even  he  is  at  a  loss.  The 
fabric  has  been  too  cunningly  woven  even  for  him. 
The  rotten  thread  of  imposture  is  there,  he  affirms, 
to  vitiate  the  stock ;  but  it  cannot  with  certainty 
always  be  disentangled  and  removed. 

Suppose  that  we  object  to  such  a  course  of  reasoning 
as  both  unscientific  and  unhistorical.  Suppose  that  we 
point  to  the  fatal  results  of  it  in  the  discredit  that 
is  brought  upon  the  only  supposed  reliable  history  of 
Israel  that  the  critics  have  left  to  us.  Suppose,  espe- 
cially, that  we  bewail  the  violence  that  is  thereby  done 
to  what  may  be  termed  the  sacred  element  in  the 
ancient  Scriptures.  The  criticism  of  Julius  Well- 
origin  and  set  aside  from  being  evidence  in  the  case.  And  it  is  the  high  function  of  his- 
torical criticism  to  go  through  the  nominal  records  of  those  ancient  times,  assort  their 
contents,  .^nd  declare  authoritatively  when  the  several  parts  were  written,  what  portions 
were  original  and  what  interpolations  —  a  task  which  is  not  so  difficult  as  it  might  seem 
to  be,  inasmuch  as  each  part  must  have  been  written,  it  is  assumed,  at  a  time  when  it 
would  dovetail  in  with  the  stage  of  religious  knowledge  which  the  theory  accords  to  the 
people  at  that  period.  The  method  and  rate  of  religious  progress  are  assumed,  and  the 
facts  are  interpreted  under  that,  instead  of  inferring  the  method  and  rate  of  religious 
progress  from  the  historical  records  as  they  have  come  down  to  us.  The  history  must  be 
assorted  and  adapted  to  the  theory  of  progress,  rather  than  the  theory  of  progress  shaped 
to  the  history.  This  makes  the  task  comparatively  easy,  and  at  the  same  time  proclaims 
the  greatness  and  sagacity  of  the  historical  critic."  Again,  p.  347:  "  Moreover,  they 
are  involved  in  another  difficulty.  By  discarding  the  account  in  the  historical  books 
detailing  the  practice  of  the  ceremoni.al  in  the  early  times,  and  holding  that  it  sprang  up 
under  the  influence  of  the  prophets,  they  have  this  strange  phenomenon  on  their  hands: 
ilic  introduction  among  a  historical  people  of  a  revolutionary  ritualism,  not  only  with  no 
record  of  its  introduction,  and  in  an  age  showing  no  signs  of  invention  or  creation  apart 
from  the  prophets,  whose  influence  was  in  another  direction,  but  with  no  recorded 
historical  preparations  for  it.  It  sprang  fuUgrown  into  power,  not  like  Minerva  out  of 
the  brain  of  Jupiter,  but  out  of  the  womb  of  historical  night  and  nothingness,  historically 
unannounced,  uncaused;  and  it  sprang  into  such  instant  dazzling  and  bewildering 
influence  as  to  send  its  glamour  back  over  the  past  and  cause  a  new  history  of  the  pre- 
ceding times  to  be  written  in  which  it  should  have  the  appearance  of  all  the  gravity  and 
dignity  of  hoary  age.  And  this  is  done  in  the  name  of  historical  criticism,  by  those  who 
think  that  sacred  history  is  an  orderly  and  natural  flow  of  events,  and  is  to  be  explained 
on  rational  principles;  discrediting  the  records  we  have  of  the  antecedents  of  ritualism, 
they  bring  it  in  at  a  bound  as  a  new  creation,  and  with  such  a  weird,  supernatural  power 
as  to  charm  all  the  historical  records  into  a  false  representation  of  its  antiquity!  This 
is  another  instance  of  facility  of  credulity  in  those  who  lack  faith." 


332       TJie  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

hausen  and  his  asssociates  is  appalled  by  no  ajDpari- 
tions  of  evil  that  it  has  conjured  up.  If  it  feel  a 
reverence  for  theocratic  institutions  and  the  hand  of 
God  in  history,  it  betrays  little.  It  is  the  very  religious 
element  in  the  records  that  is  stigmatized  as  most  com- 
pletely spurious.  It  is  the  very  man  who  says  such 
sharp  things  about  apostasy,  is  continually  recalling 
the  covenant  and  other  exodus  experiences,  and  has  the 
name  of  the  God  of  Israel  oftenest  on  his  lips,  who  is 
pronounced  the  greatest  hypocrite  of  all.  It  is  he  who 
has  put  the  simple  facts  and  characters  of  an  uncertain 
period  in  a  Deuteronomic  or  exilian  uniform  and  made 
them  do  battle  for  ideas  that  are  really  foreign  to  them. 
It  would  be  scarcely  possible,  in  short,  to  exaggerate 
the  stains  of  corruption  which  Wellhausen  and  his 
co-laborers  find  penetrating  the  records  in  every  signifi- 
cant part.  The  unity  of  Israel,  for  example,  of  which 
so  much  is  made  in  the  books,  is,  as  he  alleges,  but  a 
theoretic  unity,  invented  to  base  upon  it  the  notion  of 
a  theocracy.  In  the  genuine  tradition  it  did  not  exist, 
but  only  in  the  devised  one.  At  the  bottom  of  a 
false  continuity,  there  lies  a  false  generalization.  Even 
the  necessary  sins,  it  is  claimed,  have  been  artfully 
provided  to  meet  the  exigencies  of  an  artfully  concocted 
religious  narrative.^  Of  the  account  of  the  repentance 
of  Israel  at  Mizpeh  in  response  to  the  appeals  of 
Samuel,  where  they  are  said  to  have  put  away  Baalim 
and  Ashtaroth  to  serve  the  Lord  only  (i  Sam,  vii.  3  ff.), 
Wellhausen  declares  that  there  is  not  a  "  true  word  in 
it."  It  was  fabricated  with  a  motive  and  that  motive 
was  to  idealize  Samuel.  This  prophet  was  esteemed  a 
pattern  saint  (Jen  xv.  i).  What  more  natural  than 
that    he   should   be   assigned    the    chief    place   in   the 

1  Geschichte,  i.  p.  243  f. 


The  Law  and  the  Historical  Books.  333 

theocracy,  that  is,  in  that  religious  commonwealth  into 
which  the  later  Judaism  deftly  transmogrified  its  earlier 
counterpart.  Actual  theocracy  there  was  none  ;  it  had 
been  introduced  bodily  into  the  history  by  revision. 
Grace  and  guilt  are  there  made  to  play  their  part  in  the 
course  of  events  like  mechanical  forces.  Its  super- 
naturalism  is  simple  pedantry ;  its  characters  and  its 
admonitions  are  holy  or  otherwise,  "according  to 
receipt."  Nothing  of  the  kind,  we  may  be  sure, 
existed  in  the  original  narrative.  In  that,  Israel 
appeared  just  like  any  other  ancient  people.^ 

To  a  logic  of  this  sort  we  know  of  no  surer  or 
speedier  antidote  than  to  display  it.  The  critic  resorts 
to  a  veritable  coup  de  grace  ;  he  settles  the  question  by 
removing  it  outside  the  domain  of  discussion  for  believ- 
ing men.  Among  the  circle  of  readers  to  whom  this 
series  of  papers  will  come  it  would  certainly  occur  to 
very  few  to  hesitate  between  even  the  extreme  posi- 
tions of  the  old  theology  and  the  alternative  which  is 
here  presented. 

Attention  is  invited,  accordingly,  in  the  second  place, 
to  the  uniformity  of  what  may  be  called  fundamental 
religious  ideas  as  they  appear  in  the  historical  books, 
when  compared  with  those  of  the  Pentateuch  and  of 
the  prophets.  They  show  no  break  in  the  continuity. 
The  potential  factors  of  the  sacred  history  are  equally 
those  of  the  lawgiver  and  of  the  seer,  who  is  supposed 
to  have  been  a  law  unto  himself.  It  is  an  extraordinary 
circumstance  if  the  criticism  we  are  criticizing,  what- 
ever its  method,  has  reached  just  conclusions. 

Its  claim  is  that  the  Lsraelitish  religion  is  but  one 
of  the  principal  ancient  religions,  having  a  like  origin 
and  governed  by  precisely  similar  laws  of  growth.     Its 

'  Ibid.  p.  259  f.,  245  fl". 


334       The  Pentateuch:  Its  Origin  and  Structure, 

alleged  particular  election  is  an  untenable  hypothesis. 
There  is  nothing  whatever  supernatural  about  it.  In 
fact,  this  i^eople  was  but  one  of  the  several  Hebrew 
tribes  that  pressed  into  Canaan.  After  bitter  conflicts, 
on  the  principle  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  it  came, 
finally,  to  absorb  and  dominate  the  rest.  It  has  no 
actual  history,  save  from  the  period  of  the  judges. 
Its  beginnings  were  as  rude  as  the  rudest.  Its  God, 
Jehovah,  was,  at  first,  a  tribal  deity  only,  holding  to 
Israel  simply  the  relation  that  a  Chemosh  did  to  the 
Moabites.  Sacred  stones  and  trees  long  continued 
to  be  worshiped  without  a  suspicion  of  wrongdoing. 
Gradually  by  a  peculiar  reversal  of  moral  outlook  what 
had  been  the  sanctioned  and  legitimate  was  stigmatized 
as  idolatrous  and  criminal.  The  principal  agents  in 
this  revolution  were  the  prophets  of  the  eighth  century 
and  their  successors.  So-called  Mosaic  institutions  are 
the  post-exilian  blossom  of  a  very  small  Mosaic  germ 
which  it  is  not  easy  to  trace  beyond  the  period  of  the 
earlier  kings. ^ 

Such  is  the  theory.  Plausible  it  surely  is  per  se,  that 
is,  ignoring  the  historical  books  as  history  and  admit- 
ting them  only  as  half-mythical  stories  such  as  the 
beginnings  of  other  religions  show.  It  falls  in  with 
popular  ideas  and  current  tendencies  of  thought.  But 
the  point  to  be  determined  is,  Does  it  harmonize  with 
the  facts  ?  Does  it  fit  the  records  of  the  biblical  books 
as  we  have  them  .''  or  can  it,  without  positive  violence, 
be  adjusted  to  them  ?  The  test  we  are  now  to  apply  is 
a  perfectly  fair  one  and,  in  its  sphere,  may  be  regarded 
as  decisive.  Were  the  ruling  ideas  of  the  prophets  by 
which  they  are  supposed  to  have  revolutionized  the 
religion  of  Israel  original  and  elemental  with  them  .-'  or 

1  Cf.    Kueiien,  V'/w  Rcligiiui   of  Israel,  i.   Introd.   and   chaps,   i.,  iv.,  v;    Diihm,   Dil 
Theologie dcr  Prophetoi,  Prolegom.  etc.;  Stade,  GeschicJitcd.  Volkes  Is.,  p.  127  ff. 


TJie  Laiv  and  the  Historical  Books.  335 

were  they,  in  kind,  also    regarded  as    fundamental  in 
the  Patriarchal  and  royal  periods  ? 

Take,  for  example,  the  doctrine  that  God  is  one.  Is 
there  any  evidence  whatever  that  the  Jewish  people 
were  at  any  time  anything  else,  ideally,  than  monothe- 
ists  ?  Isaiah  represents  the  God  of  Israel  as  saying, 
"  I  am  the  first,  and  I  the  last ;  and  beside  me  there  is 
no  God  "  (Is.  xliv.  6).  How  does  that  differ  in  senti- 
ment from  the  great  announcement  which  prefaces  the 
Decalogue  :  "  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before 
me  "  ?  It  is  but  an  echo  of  Moses'  words  in  the  land 
of  Moab  :  "  Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  our  God  is  one 
Lord  "  (Deut.  vi.  4)  !  "  The  Lord  he  is  God  ;  there  is 
none  else  beside  him.  The  Lord  he  is  God  in  heaven 
above  and  upon  the  earth  beneath"  (Deut.  iv,  35,  39). 
And  the  whole  history  moves  on  the  same  level.  That 
there  was  an  ugly  trend  toward  idolatry  for  nearly  a 
thousand  years  is  not  denied ;  no  effort  is  made  by  any 
biblical  writer  to  conceal  the  fact.  It  is  clear,  however, 
that  it  generally  took  the  form  of  a  false  worship  of 
Jehovah  rather  than  of  a  direct  worship  of  other  deities  ; 
it  was  a  transgression  of  the  second  commandment 
rather  than  of  the  first.  There  were,  it  is  true,  idola- 
ters of  a  grosser  sort  ;  another  Israel  within  Israel, 
which  dropped  down  to  the  plane  of  all  that  was  base 
in  the  surrounding  heathenism.  It  is  shown  as  well  by 
the  strenuousness  of  reiterated  prohibitions,  as  by  the 
details  of  the  narrative.  But,  unless  the  whole  repre- 
sentation of  the  historical  books  is  false  to  the  core, 
the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  he  who  deliv- 
ered from  Egyptian  oppression,  carried  Israel  as  on 
eagle's  wings  during  the  wanderings  of  the  wilderness, 
dispossessed  the  Canaanites,  alternately  punished  and 
delivered  the   redeemed    w:'-'- w    in    its   carher   lapses, 


33^       The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Stnictuf^. 

raised  up  and  stood  by  his  servant  Samuel,  so  that  he 
appears  almost  like  a  heavenly  apparition  on  the  sacred 
page,  was  the  glory  and  reward  of  such  reigns  as  those 
of  David,  Asa,  and  Josiah,  as  he  was  the  terror  of  such 
as  Saul's,  Jeroboam's,  and  Ahab's,  was,  from  beginning 
to  end,  one  and  the  same  God,  not  less  in  the  deeper 
consciousness  of  the  people  of  Israel  than  in  that  of 
their  teachers  and  leaders. 

Moreover,  this  one  God  is  represented  everywhere  as 
the  only  one  of  his  kind,  the  God,  the  omnipotent,  the 
eternal,  the  holy  God,  Creator,  and  universal  Governor. 
There  may  be  a  difference  of  emphasis  as  one  rises 
from  the  phraseology  of  the  Law  and  the  relative  calm- 
ness of  the  historian  to  the  impassioned  fervor  of  pro- 
phet and  poet ;  but  there  is  no  difference  in  the  essential 
point  of  view.  There  is  nowhere  discoverable,  from  first 
to  last,  a  stage  of  transition,  or  any  actual  traces  of  one, 
where  the  idea  of  the  alleged  national  God  is  found 
passing  over  into  that  of  the  supreme  God.  It  appears 
nowhere  as  a  mere  adumbration,  but  always  full-orbed 
and  complete.  Let  the  improbability,  for  example,  be 
assumed  that  some  post-exilian  scribe  stamped  on  the 
first  verse  of  the  Bible  the  great  and  many-sided 
thought :  "  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heavens 
and  the  earth."  We  hear,  too,  the  devout  Hannah,  at 
the  time  when  Israel  was  just  emerging  from  the  politi- 
cal chaos  which  followed  the  conquest,  echoing  it  in 
her  prayer  :  *'  The  pillars  of  the  earth  are  Jehovah's,  and 
he  hath  set  the  world  upon  them"  (r  Sam.  ii.  8).  It  is 
Isaiah,  it  is  true,  who  suggests  that  there  is  but '  one 
answer  to  the  inquiry :  "  Who  hath  created  these 
things  that  bring  out  their  host  by  number  ? "  (xl,  26). 
But  the  so-called  Jehovistic  narrator  of  Genesis  (xviii. 
14),  in  the  breadth  of   his   representation    surely  puts 


The  Law  and  the  Historical  Books.  337 

himself  close  beside  him  in  the  question :  "  Is  there 
anything  too  hard  for  Jehovah  ?  " 

We  are  told  that  it  was  with  the  later  prophets  that 
the  notion  of  the  divine  holiness  had  its  origin  and  that 
monotheism  itself,  in  its  best  sense,  was  but  a  fruit  oi 
their  peculiarly  ethical  conception  of  the  divine  nature.^ 
Yet  it  is  in  the  alleged  earliest  document  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch (Ex.  xix.  6,  that  is,  JE)  that  God  is  made  to  say  to 
Israel :  "  Ye  shall  be  unto  me  a  kingdom  of  priests, 
and  an  holy  nation."  It  is  there  that  we  find  the 
sentiment  worthy  of  the  period  of  Israel's  spiritual 
bloom  :  "  Who  is  like  thee,  O  Lord,  among  the  gods  ? 
Who  is  like  thee  glorious  in  holiness,  fearful  in  praises, 
doing  wonders?"  (Ex.  xv.  11).  And  it  can  have  been 
only  a  deep  consciousness  of  this  same  awful  attribute 
vof  the  God  he  served  that  lent  its  mysterious  power  to 
the  finger  of  the  prophet  Nathan  when  he  confronted 
the  guilty  David  (2  Sam.  xii.  7),  and  that  gave  its 
keenest  barb  to  Elijah's  challenge  of  Ahab  :  "  I  have 
not  troubled  Israel ;  but  thou  and  thy  father's  house,  in 
that  ye  have  forsaken  the  commandments  of  the  Lord 
and  gone  after  Baals  "  (i  Kings  xviii.  18).^ 

So,  too,  as  it  respects  the  matter  of  worship  through 
images,  the  effort  to  show  that  there  was  a  gradual 
development  in  the  historic  Israel  from  mere  fetishism 
up  to  the  spiritual  representations  of  an  Isaiah  (xxxi. 
3),  based  on  such  facts  as  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant 
with  its  cherubim,  circumcision,  the  dedication  of  the 
first-born,  and  such  anomalies  as  the  worship  of  Aaron's 
golden  calf,  the  use  of  cphod,  teraphim,  and  the  like,^ 
fails,  not  alone  in  view  of  the  direct  prohibition  of  the 
second  commandment,  but  of  the  inability  of  anybody 

*  See  Kuenen,  The  Religion  of  Is.,  i.  p.  43  IT. 

2  Cf.  also  a  portion  of  Solomon's  prayer  of  dedication  (i  Kings  viii.  31,  32). 

3  Kuenen,  ilu'ci.  i.  chap.  iv. 


338        The  Pentateuch:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

to  point  to  a  single  instance  in  the  history  where  visible 
representations  of  the  Deity  are  actually  approved  by 
responsible  leaders  or  even  seem  to  be  in  harmony 
with  the  deeper  religious  feeling  of  Israel. 

Nothing  could  be  more  unfair  than  to  infer  the  ideal 
aims  of  any  people  simply  from  what  was  more  or  less 
customary  in  it,  much  less  from  what  is  claimed  by 
every  historical  writer  to  be  irregular  in  its  customs. 
It  was  left,  indeed,  to  the  Master  to  make  the  sublime 
announcement  that  God  is  a  spirit  and  that  they  who 
worship  him  must  worship  him  in  spirit  and  in  truth. 
This  sentiment,  however,  was  no  novelty  of  the 
Christian  era.  It  was  born  in  no  bitter  experiences  of 
the  exile.  It  is  found  already  in  the  code  of  Deuteron- 
omy, written  as  with  a  pen  of  iron  (xii.  2-4,  29,  30;  cf. 
iv.  15-19;  vii.  5,  25,  26;  XX.  18).  It  is  displayed,  as  a 
jewel  on  its  foil,  against  the  dark  background  of  Israel's 
earlier  Canaantish  history.  Gideon  made  an  ephod  of 
the  people's  ornaments ;  but  mark  the  characterization 
of  it !  It  became  a  "  snare  "  and  its  service  was  looked 
upon  as  spiritual  adultery  (Judges  viii.  24-27).  A  simi- 
lar device  of  Micah  is  stigmatized  as  a  thing,  a  graven 
image  {Judges  xvii.  4),  and  the  reverence  shown  it 
stamped  as  an  abnormity  of  a  lawless  age  and  a  positive 
antagonizing  of  the  worship  of  the  Lord  before  the  ark 
at  Shiloh  (Judges  xviii.  31). 

The  candor  of  the  historian  supplies  us,  also,  with 
the  information  that  King  Solomon  erected  a  high- 
place  to  Chemosh,  the  "  abomination  of  the  Moabites  " 
(i  Kings  xi.  7).  But  we  do  not  need  to  be  informed 
that  it  is  the  lapsed  Solomon.  It  is  he  who  at  an 
earlier  period  had  given  expression  to  the  thought: 
"  Will  God,  indeed,  dwell  on  the  earth }  Behold  the 
heaven  of  heavens  cannot  contain  thee,  how  much  less 
this  house  which  I  have  builded  "  (i  Kings  viii.  27). 


The  Law  n.if  .// ■  llistjrical  Books.  33Q 

The  better  moral  sentiment  of  Israel  on  this  subject 
during  the  period  of  the  earlier  kings,  is  well  voiced  in 
that  masterpiece  of  the  Chokma  literature,  the  Book 
of  Job.  "  If,"  says  this  writer,  "  I  saw  the  sunlight 
when  it  beamed  forth  and  the  moon  walking  in  bright- 
ness and  my  heart  was  secretly  befooled  and  I  kissed 
my  hand  to  them  :  that,  too,  would  have  heen  a  punish- 
able offence ;  for  I  should  have  played  the  hypocrite 
before  God  on  high"  (Job  xxxi.  26-28).  It  is  equally 
so,  in  the  evident  abhorrence  which  Jeroboam's  legend 
for  his  golden  calves  at  Bethel  awakened,  as  far  as  we 
know,  in  every  Jewish  writer  of  his  and  subsequent 
biblical  times  :  "  Behold  thy  gods,  Israel,  which  brought 
thee  up  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  "  (i  Kings  xii.  28). 
How  confidently,  moreover,  this  narrator  relied  on 
the  enlightened  moral  sense  of  his  countrymen  in  this 
characterization  of  the  Egyptianized  king  of  Israel, 
and  how  far  he  is  from  showing  himself  a  merely  parti- 
san historiographer  of  the  southern  kingdom,  appears 
in  his  bold  appeal  to  numerous  other  facts  in  the  civil 
policy  of  Jeroboam,  not  one  of  which  had  any  pertinence 
except  as  he  himself  truly  represented  the  course  of 
Israelitish  history  and  spoke  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  long  ago  chosen  people  (i   Kings  xii.  31-33;  xiii.). 

But  there  is  another  phenomenon  of  the  Israelitish 
religion  clearly  witnessed  to  by  the  history  in  common 
with  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  to  which  attention  should 
be  called  in  this  connection  :  it  is  the  universality  of 
its  outlook  from  the  start.  Its  genius  might  be  said  to 
be  particularism.  Selection  and  election  mark  its 
career  from  its  patriarchal  ancestry  downward.  It  is 
never  concealed,  however,  that  the  particular  is  for  the 
general ;  the  redeemed  nation  the  unit  of  a  redeemed 
world. 


340        The  Pentateuch  :    Its  Origin  and  Strncttif^. 

It  is  claimed,  now,  and  must,  on  their  principles, 
necessarily  be  claimed,  by  the  advocates  of  a  merely 
natural  evolution  of  Israel's  history,  that  this  element  of 
universalism  is  a  product  of  the  prophetic  period.  It  is 
held  that  before  the  time  of  Micah  and  Isaiah  Israel's 
religious  hope  and  aspiration  were  shut  up  within  the 
narrow  horizon  of  the  nation  politically  considered. 
Largely  indebted  to  their  matchless  prophets, 
especially  the  later  ones,  for  their  marvelous  perspec- 
tive, it  is  freely  confessed  that  this  people  undoubtedly 
was.  If  these  men  outgrew  the  name,  they  never  out- 
grew the  prerogative,  of  seers.  They  vaulted  at  a 
bound  intervening  centuries  and  seemed  to  apprehend 
not  a  little  of  the  breadth  of  that  most  universal  and 
most  characteristic  of  Christian  petitions  :  "  Thy  king- 
dom come"!  Still  Jews,  and  in  their  little  rocky 
home-land  burning  with  a  patriotism  which  no  trials 
could  quench,  they  also  spoke  jubilantly  of  a  common- 
wealth of  nations,  a  universal  empire  of  righteousness 
and  peace,  where  the  ransomed  of  the  Lord  should 
return  to  Zion  and  sorrow  and  sighing  should  flee 
away. 

Our  grandest  Christian  enterprises,  in  fact,  still  run 
in  prophetic  grooves.  It  is  not  St.  John  and  St.  Paul 
who  are  the  patrons  of  modern  missions,  but  rather 
the  rapt  Isaiah.  It  is  his  bugle  that  still,  to-day,  rallies 
and  guides  the  march  of  the  militant  host.  And  as, 
sometimes,  there  are  stars  which  refuse  to  be  obscured, 
making  themselves  manifest  even  through  the  splendor 
of  a  noonday  sun,  so  there  are  passages  in  this  and 
other  prophets  so  luminous  with  heavenly  hope  that, 
not  alone  in  the  gloom  of  Africa  or  the  twilight  of  the 
older  civilizations,  but  at  the  very  focus  of  Christian 
civilization  and  enlightenment,  they  serve  as  beacons 
of  inspiration  and  encouragement. 


The  Lazv  and  iJic  Historical  Books.  341 

It  is  true  also,  as  has  been  already  said,  that  both  the 
earlier  and  later  Israel  —  though  rather  the  later  than 
the  earlier — -has  been  marked  by  a  peculiar  isolation. 
It  has  been  the  gulf  stream  of  human  society,  although 
with  little  of  its  tropic  warmth.  Balaam's  prediction 
concerning  it  has  been  literally  verified  to  our  day.  It 
has  been  a  people  that  has  dwelt  alone  and  has  not 
been  reckoned  among  the  nations  (Num.  xxiii.  9). 
Still,  these  facts,  so  far  from  furnishing  a  reason  for 
denying  the  stamp  of  universalism  that  has  been  put 
upon  the  institutions  and  history  of  Israel  throughout, 
serve  rather  to  display  it,  on  the  one  hand,  by  a  marked 
coincidence  ;  on  the  other,  by  as  marked  a  contrast.  It 
is  not  needful  to  recall  our  Lord's  words  to  his  Jewish 
cqntemporaries :  "  Your  father,  Abraham,  rejoiced  to 
see  my  day ;  and  he  saw  it,  and  was  glad  "  (John  viii. 
56).  The  same  truth  is  more  than  foreshadowed  in 
numerous  passages  in  Genesis  (xviii.  18;  xxii.  18; 
xxvi,  4).  While  it  was  in  this  father  of  Israel  that  the 
high-water  mark  of  national  election  was  reached,  it  is 
to  him  also  that  we  may  especially  look  for  evidence 
that  such  election  was  a  means,  had  an  application  that 
reached  to  the  utmost  limits  of  the  pagan  world.  If, 
for  reasons  that  are  obvious,^  the  principle  of  universal- 
ism, the  thought  of  the  Psalmist,  "  The  kingdom  is  the 
Lord's,  and  he  is  the  Governor  among  the  nations " 
(xxii.  29),  was,  at  first,  to  some  extent  kept  in  abeyance, 
its  existence  and  wide  potentiality  are  undeniable. 

If,  for  instance,  there  could  be  found  no  other 
justification  for  what  are  termed,  in  our  day,  "home 
missions,"  a  sufficient  one  might  be  found  in  the  primi- 
tive customs  and  codes  of  Israel.  There  was  never  a 
time  when  others   than    Israelites    were    not,   by    con- 

'  Such  as  the  inarkctl  isolation  of  peoples  generally  in  the  earlier  periods,  and  especially 
the  antagonistic  attitude  alniost  universally  taken  toward  Israel, 


34-        The  PoitatciicJi, :  Its  Origin  and  Strncture. 

version  and  religious  assimilation,  becoming  embodied 
with  the  Jewish  people.  No  other  nation  of  antiquity- 
had  such  kindly  and  humane  laws  respecting  the 
"  strangers "  who  found  refuge  among  them.  They 
begin  in  Exodus  (xx.  lo;  xxii.  20,  the  "Book  of  the 
Covenant  "),  and  they  make  a  feature  of  the  Deuteron- 
omic  code  scarcely  second  to  any  other.  Long  before 
Micah's  startling  announcements  and  Isaiah's  visions, 
we  find  in  many  a  biblical  writer  a  breadth  of  concep- 
tion concerning  Israel's  future,  and  a  beginning  made 
in  what  may  be  called  her  foreign-missionary  work,  that 
are  certainly  not  unworthy  of  the  prophetic  climax. 

Leaving  out  of  view  the  far-reaching  predictions  of 
the  dying  patriarchs  and  other  similar  indications  of 
Israel's  earlier  attitude  toward  the  nations,  it  is  the 
mother  of  Samuel  whose  song,  echoed  in  the  magnificat 
of  Mary  the  blessed,  exalts  Jehovah  as  the  judge  of  the 
ends  of  the  earth,  before  whom  the  heavens  thunder 
and  his  enemies  lick  the  dust  (i  Sam.  ii.  10).  Solomon, 
in  his  prayer  of  dedication,  where,  if  anywhere,  it  might 
be  expected  that  the  sentiment  of  political  and  religious 
centralization  would  find  place,  bethinks  himself  also 
of  the  stranger  out  of  a  far  country,  "when  he  shall 
come  and  pray  toward  this  house."  He  pleads  :  "  Hear 
then  in  heaven  thy  dwelling-place,  and  do  according  to 
all  that  the  stranger  calleth  to  thee  for  :  tJiat  all  the 
people  of  the  earth  may  knozv  thy  name  to  fear  thee  as 
do  thy  people  IsraeV\\  Kings  viii.  42,  43  ;  cf.  vs.  60). 
And  it  may  be  looked  upon  as  an  historical  reflection 
of  this  petition  that  it  is  recorded  that  when  the  Queen 
of  Sheba  came  to  "hear  the  wisdom  of  Solomon,"  she 
was  also  led  to  magnify  the  Lord  his  God,  and  to 
confess  that  the  Lord  had  "  ever  loved  Israel  "  (i  Kings 
X.  9).     The  most  moving  picture,  perhaps,  in  the  great 


The  Lata  and  the  Historical  Books.  343 

career  of  the  prophet  Elijah  is  that  of  his  friendly 
ministrations  to  the  impoverished  Canaanitish  widow 
of  Zarephath.  Among  the  most  significant  acts  of 
Elisha  were  the  healing  of  Naaman  the  Syrian  and  the 
fore-announcement  to  Hazael  of  Damascus,  the  future 
scourge  of  Israel,  of  his  elevation  to  the  throne  (2  Kings 
viii.  7-15).  Prophecy  is  not  less  prophetic  because  it 
shows  itself  in  action  as  well  as  in  speech. 

What  one  thing,  indeed,  could  better  have  proved  the 
world-calling  of  the  covenant  people  than  the  mission 
of  Jonah  to  the  great  Assyrian  capital  on  the  banks  of 
the  Tigris  ?  In  this  little  book  the  current  of  history 
and  prophecy  meet  and  coalesce.  It  has  been  justly 
called  ^  "  a  foreign-missionary  book  in  the  midst  of  the 
Old  Testament  "  ;  a  divine  anticipation  of  the  breaking- 
down  of  barriers  in  the  announcement  of  salvation." 
Objecting  to  some  parts  of  the  story  as  fabulous  does 
not  explain  the  reason  why  such  a  story  is  told  of  the 
son  of  Amittai,  a  contemporary  of  the  prophet  Elisha. 
The  fact  of  his  inevitable  and  unalterable  commission 
is  but  set  in  the  stronger  light  by  his  reluctance  to 
execute  it.  It  was  the  Jew  who  resisted,  the  character 
that  lacks  no  prominence  in  the  sacred  annals,  even  in 
those  of  the  New  Testament.  It  is  the  Israelite,  the 
true  son  of  Abraham,  the  man  who  has  been  lifted  into 
the  higher  atmosphere  of  the  national  institutions,  who 
finally  yields  and  preaches  the  preaching  that  he  is 
bidden. 

These,  now,  are   some   of    the   most    characteristic 
elements  of  the  religion  of  Israel.     They  are  acknowl 
edged  by  all  to  be  such  in  the  most  developed  stages 
of    that    religion.     But    we    find    them    potential     and 
necessary  elements  in  the  patriarchal  and  royal  periods 

1  Pgliusch,  Messianic  Prophecies,  p.  58  f. 


344        '^^^^  PoitateiicJi :  Its  Origin  mid  Structure. 

as  well  as  in  the  prophetic.  If  there  be  any  later  era 
of  the  nation's  life  when  they  first  began  to  be  intro- 
duced, we  fail  to  discover  it.  If  there  were  a  real 
chrysalis  period  and  condition  of  these  principles,  the 
present  text  of  the  Bible  gives  us  no  intimation  of  it ; 
much  less  of  the  point  of  transition  where  they  took 
the  i^lace  of  others  which  were  their  exact  opposites 
and  had  been  disputing  the  way  with  them.  Signs  of 
conflict,  it  is  true,  are  sufficiently  abundant ;  but  it  is 
with  Canaanitish  and  other  heathen  customs,  which, 
like  the  Canaanites  themselves,  are  recognized  as  under 
the  ban  and  exist  alone  by  sufferance. 

If,  accordingly,  the  theory  of  our  critics  be  correct, 
there  is  a  singular  confusion  of  ideas  in  the  books  of 
Judges,  Samuel,  and  the  Kings.  Not  only  have  they 
been  seriously  tampered  with,  they  have  been  wholly 
and  purposely  reconstructed  in  the  interest  of  a  late 
and  largely  fanciful  conception  of  Israelitish  history. 
And  this,  these  same  critics,  as  we  have  seen,  do  not 
hesitate  to  affirm  and  to  make  the  starting-point  of  all 
their  reasoning.  But  let  us  be  consistent.  We  may 
accept  or  we  may  reject  the  biblical  books  as  our 
authorities.  We  cannot,  with  fairness,  accept  what  we 
please  and  reject  what  we  please,  to  suit  the  require- 
ments of  an  hypothesis  confessed  to  be  alien  to  both 
the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  Bible  as  it  now  exists. 
It  will  probably  be  found,  in  the  end,  that  what 
the  majority  of  men  and  women  who  have  the  Bible 
wish  to  know  is  what  the  biblical  writers  themselves 
say.  What  the  critic  has  to  say,  if  it  contradict  the 
Bible,  will  doubtless  be  taken  for  what  it  is  worth. 
And  what  it  is  worth  will  depend  largely  upon  the 
evidence  he  has  to  offer  that  he  has  special  facilities 
for  discovering   the   errors   of   the   Bible  and  that  he 


TJie  Law  and  the  Historical  Books.  345 

himself  may  safely  be  followed  where  it  would  lead 
us  astray.  1 

We  remark  in  the  third  place,  and  finally,  that  the 
historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  contain  such 
references,  direct  and  indirect,  to  the  Pentateuch 
history  and  codes  in  their  united  form  as  the  Torah 
mediated  by  Moses,  that  we  are  fully  justified,  in  the 
circumstances,  in  inferring,  what  these  histories  would 
plainly  have  us  infer,  that  they  all  and  severally 
belong  to  the  Mosaic  period. 

The  references  are  of  such  a  kind,  that  is,  as  to 
substantiate  the  point  of  view,  the  spirit,  the  ruling 
principles  of  the  narrative  as  we  have  found  them  in 
the  preceding  investigation.  It  is  not  to  be  overlooked, 
however,  that  it  is  with  histories  that  we  now  have  to  do. 
It  would  be  unfair  to  demand  of  them  that  they  give 
us  a  detailed  account  of  the  regular  religious  and  eccle- 
siastical usages  of  the  periods  they  cover,  unless  they 
profess  to  do  this,  which  is  clearly  not  the  case.  They 
necessarily  take  not  a  little  for  granted.  They  were 
written  for  people  who  did  not  need  to  be  assured  of 
the  certainty  of  many  things  now  considered  uncertain. 
They  therefore  note,  as  we  would  expect  them  to  do, 
offences  against  the  laws  rather  than  occasions  of  their 
regular  observance ;  the  extraordinary  rather  than  the 
ordinary.  The  principles  that  governed  the  writers, 
their  ethical  point  of   view  required  them    to    do    as 

*  The  Congregationalist  of  October  9,  1884,  in  a  notice  of  Stanley's  work  on  The 
Future  Religion,  has  the  following  remarks  on  his  methods,  which  are  also  pertinent  here : 
"  On  this  b.isis  Mr.  Stanley  is  free  to  rule  in  and  to  rule  out,  to  accept  a  statement  as  far  as 
it  suits  his  preconceived  theories,  and  anywhere  and  any  when  to  reject  a  part,  or  tlio  wliole, 
as  he  may  find  needful  for  the  uses  of  whatever  hypothesis  is  for  the  time  being  in  hand. 
This  is  convenient  for  Mr.  Stanley.  But  the  inconvenience  of  it  to  the  reader  partly  con- 
sists in  the  fact  that  it  requires  him  to  accept  that  gentleman  as  the  source  of  all  revelation 
fit  toclaim  human  confidence,  while  failing  to  suggest  so  much  as  a  scintilla  of  proof  that 
he  knows  any  more  than  everybody  else  knows  about  it."  Cf  also  a  notice  of  Von 
Ranke's  Universal  History  in  llie  Sunday-School  Times  for  September  13,  1884,  p.  586, 


34^        The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origm  and  Structure. 

much  as  this.  Their  duties  as  historians  did  not 
require  them  to  do  more. 

Taking,  now,  a  hasty  survey  of  the  three  connected 
histories  of  Judges,  Samuel,  and  the  Kings,^  let  us  see 
if  there  has  not  been  left  upon  them  such  a  peculiar 
impression  of  the  so-called  "Mosaic"  institutions  as 
to  force  us,  all  things  being  considered,  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  their  acknowledged  point  of  view  is  genuine 
and  not  assumed  ;  that  is,  that  the  Torah  in  its  full 
extent  furnished  the  literary  and  moral  basis  on  which 
they  were  one  and  all  constructed.  We  will  begin 
with  references  that  are  more  or  less  indefinite  ;  then, 
take  up  such  as  seem  unmistakable  ;  and  finally,  note 
what  is  exceptional  and  might  be  supposed,  if  it  stood 
alone,  to  justify  a  contrary  result. 

We  find,  at  the  outset,  that  the  Book  of  Judges  is 
joined  to  that  of  Joshua  by  the  conjunction  vav,  and 
that  its  opening  chapters  have  the  marked  coloring  of 
the  Book  of  the  Covenant  and  the  code  of  Deuteronomy 
(ii.  1-3;  cf.  Ex.  XX.  2;  xxiii.  33;  Deut.  xii.  3  f.).  We 
find  the  Deuteronomic  office  of  the  judge,  during  this 
whole  period,  taking  precedence  of  every  other  (Deut. 
xvi.  18  f.  ;  xvii.  8  1).  We  find  the  nation  as  such, 
notwithstanding  it  is  so  conscious,  in  this  era  of  land 
settlements,  of  its  tribal  character,  sometimes,  at  least, 
acting  in  unison  (viii.  22,  23  ;  xx.  i  ;  xxi.  16,  22  f.).  We 
find  in  the  acknowledged  kingship  of  Jehovah  a  tacit 
recognition  of  the  most  fundamental  principle  of  the 
theocracy  (viii.  22  f.).  We  see  the  Levites  scattered 
among  the  other  tribes,  enjoying  peculiar  prerogatives 
accorded  peculiar  honors  (xvii.  5-13  ;  xix.  i,  2).  The 
rite  of    circumcision   is   recognized   as   a    national    dis- 

1  The  Book  of  Joshua,  which  would  be  a  decisive  factor  in  the  discussion  if  it  were 
admitted  to  it  as  genuine  history,  is  excluded  by  our  critics  as  being  a  part  of  th*^  Hexa- 
J«uch  whose  age  and  composition  are  in  debate. 


The  Law  and  the  Historical  Books.  347 

tinction  (xiv.  3  ;  cf.  xv.  18).  The  tribe  of  Judah  holds 
the  preeminence  which  is  claimed  for  it  in  the  history 
of  the  exodus  (i.  2;  xx.  18;  cf.  Num.  ii.  3  ;  x.  14;  Gen. 
xlix.  8  ff.). 

When,  further,  we  come  to  the  Books  of  Samuel,  we 
find  them  introduced  by  an  account  of  a  Levitical 
and  a  priestly  family  and  their  intimate  relationship. 
Samuel  appears  as  judge  to  supplant  the  inefficient 
Eli ;  but  also  to  introduce  an  office  of  higher  signifi- 
cance and  bring  back  his  lapsed  people  to  what  he 
claims  to  be  the  old  faith  and  the  old  service  (i  Sam. 
vii.  3  f.). 

The  Ark  of  the  Covenant  comes  into  ever  greater 
prominence  as  the  central  object  of  the  national  sanctu- 
ary and  the  focus  of  religious  life.  In  the  very  opening 
chapters  the  Elohistic  history  of  the  Book  of  Exodus 
is  made  a  subject  of  frequent  reference  (i  Sam.  iv.  8  ; 
viii.  8 ;  xii.  8  ;  cf.  Ex,  iii.-xv.).  The  historian  hastens 
forward  to  his  principal  topic,  which  is  the  career  of 
David ;  but  he  seems  never  to  forget  that  the  peculiar 
history  of  Israel  hitherto  has  furnished  the  pledge,  and 
is  the  ground  of  hope,  for  its  future  (cf.  i  Sam.  iv. 
14-22  ;  viii.  6,  7). 

In  the  Books  of  Kings,  the  law  of  the  land,  precedent, 
what  is  sanctioned  in  distinction  from  what  is  often  in 
vogue  is,  as  we  have  seen,  everywhere  represented  as 
something  that  has  come  down  from  the  fathers.  In  a 
surprising  number  of  instances  it  is  definitely  connected 
by  name  with  Moses  and  with  the  institutions  of  Moses 
(i  Kings  ii.  3  ;  viii.  9,  53,  56;  2  Kings  xiv.  6;  xxviii. 
4,  6;  xxi.  8  ;  xxiii.  25).  At  the  same  time,  what  appear 
to  be  verbal  reminiscences  of  the  Pcntateucli  history 
and  its  two  leading  codes  are  scattered  about  in  both 
Samuel  and  the  Kings  like  scraps  of  ore  from  a  central 


348       The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

ledge  (i  Sam.  ii.  13  ;  cf.  Deut.  xviii.  3  ;  i  Sam,  xv.  29; 
cf.  Num.  xxiii.  19;  i  Sam.  viii.  5;  cf.  Deut.  xvii.  14; 
2  Sam.  vii.  22-24;  cf.  Deut.  iv.  7;  x.  21  ;  xiii.  6)} 

These  might  be  called  general  allusions  to  the 
Pentateuch.  There  is  a  multitude  of  others  which 
fail  as  little  in  pertinence  as  in  explicitness.  The  law 
of  the  Nazarite,  for  example,  is  found  only  in  the 
"Priests'  Code"  (Num.  vi.  1-21);  while  the  historical 
books  show  us  that  it  had  its  greatest  significance  as 
a  practice  near  the  close  of  the  period  of  the  judges. 
In  fact,  the  only  Nazarites  for  life  mentioned  in  the 
Bible  are  Samson,  Samuel,  and  John  the  Baptist.  In 
harmony  with  all  the  codes,  the  eating  of  the  blood, 
with  the  flesh,  of  animals  is  treated  by  Saul  as  a 
gross  offence  (i  Sam.  xiv.  32,  33  ;  cf.  Gen.  ix.  4;  Lev. 
iii.  17;  Deut.  xii.  16,  23;  xiv.  21,  23).  So,  too,  the 
command  to  Saul  to  destroy  the  Amalekites  rests 
equally  and  solidly  on  the  two  abutments  of  an  histori- 
cal fact  and  legal  enactment  of  the  Elohistic  Torah, 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  code  of  Deuteronomy,  on 
the  other  (i  Sam.  xv.  i  ff.  ;  Ex.  xvii.  8  ff.  ;  Deut.  xxv.  17- 
19).  We  likewise  find  in  this  same  period  of  Israel's 
first  king  what  appears  to  be  the  regular  observance 
of  the  festival  of  the  new  moon,  a  matter  legitimated 
solely  by  the  code  of  the  middle  books  of  the 
Pentateuch  (i  Sam.  xx.  5  ;  cf.  Num.  x.  10;  xxviii.  11). 
Ceremonial  impurity  also  is  looked  upon  even  by  Saul 
as  a  sufficient  occasion  for  abstinence  from  religious 
festivities  (i  Sam.  xx.  26;  xxi.  5,  6).  The  law  against 
the  taking  of  bribes  and  that  making  the  destruction  of 
every  form  of  witchcraft  along  with  those  practising  it 

'  Further,  with  i   Kings  ii.  3  cf.,  in  the  original,  Deut.  xxix.  8;  with  i  Kings  ii.  g  cf. 

Deut.  xxi.   17;   with  i    Kings  xxii.  17  cf.  Num.  xxvii.  17;  with    i    Kings    xxii.   27  cf. 

Deut.  xvi.  3;  with  2  Kings  v.  27  cf.  Ex.  iv.  6;  Num.  xii.  10;  with  2  Kings  xiv.  27 
cf.  Deut.  ix.  14;  xxix.  20. 


The  Law  and  the  Historical  Books.  349 

the  imperative  duty  of  the  state,  we  discover  already  in 
force  under  circumstances  that  greatly  enhance  the 
stress  that  is  laid  upon  them  in  the  codes  (i  Sam.  viii. 
3  ;  xii.  3  ;  cf.  Deut.  xvi.  9 ;  i  Sam.  xxviii.  9  f. ;  cf.  Deut. 
xviii.  10,  1 1). 

In  the  time  of  Solomon  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  as 
well  as  the  other  two  pilgrimage  feasts,  are  recognized, 
as  it  would  appear,  as  established  usages  (i  Kings  viii. 
2 ;  ix.  25). 1  In  his  prayer  of  dedication  specific  notice 
is  taken  of  the  blessings  and  curses  of  the  Pentateuch, 
both  in  their  earlier  and  their  later  form  (i  Kings  viii.  ; 
cf.  Lev.  xxvi.  ;  Deut.  xxviii.).  In  harmony  with  Joshua 
xxi.  8,  Anathoth  is  incidentally  indicated  as  one  of  the 
Levitical  cities  (i  Kings  ii.  26  ;  cf.  Josh.  xiv.  4;  Num. 
XXXV.  8).  Of  Jeroboam  it  is  said  that  he  purposely 
transgressed  the  law  respecting  the  feast  of  the 
seventh  month,  that  is,  the  feast  of  tabernacles 
(i  Kings  xii.  32  f. ;  cf.  Lev.  xxiii.  34  ff.).  And  of  Jehu 
that  he  took  "  no  heed  to  walk  in  the  law  of  the  Lord 
God  of  Israel"  {2  Kings  x.  31).  In  2  Kings  vii.  3, 
during  the  famine  in  Samaria,  we  find  a  company  of 
lepers  treated  just  as  the  Levitical  statutes  enjoin, 
in  their  exclusion  from  the  camp  (Lev.  xiii.  46; 
Num.  V.  3). 

Other  passages  represent  as  something  known  to 
every  one  the  hour  of  morning  and  evening  sacrifice 
(i  Kings  xviii.  29 ;  2  Kings  iii.  20)  ;  the  law  of  the 
trespass-offering   and    sin-offering    (2    Kings    xii.    17),^ 

'  "  Denn  wenn  i  Kon.  viii.  2  gesagt  wird,  dass  sich  das  Volk,  urn  Zeuge  der  Ubcrfiih- 
rung  der  Bundeslade  in  den  vollendeten  Tempel  zu  sein  im  7.  Monat  bechagh  versam. 
melte,  so  bezieht  sich  dieses  Chagli  nicht  aiif  die  Tempelwcihc  (wie  es  verstehen  liese 
wenn  lachagh  chagh  gesagt  ware),  sondern  aiif  das  in  den  Tischri  fallende  Lauljenfest, 
mit  welchem  Salomo  die  Tenipelweihe  verband."  —  Delitzsch,  in  Zeitschri/t  /'tir 
kirchlicke  Wissetischaft,  etc.,  1880,  p.  173. 

2  "  Schuldopfer-und  Sundop/ergeld,  d.  i.,  das,  was  man  bei  diescn  Opkrn /rc/uu'/Ug 
dein  adininistrirenden  Priester  fur  seine  Bemuhunff  darreichte,  s.  4  Mos.  Sj  lo."  — 
Thenius,  Com.,  in  ioc. 


350       TJic  PeiitateticJi:  Its  Oi'igin  and  Structure. 

and  that  of  the  Sabbath  (2  Kings  iv.  23.  ;  cf.  xi.  5  f.). 
In  2  Kings  xiv.  6,  Amaziah  is  declared  to  have  acted 
in  a  certain  matter  according  to  that  which  was 
"written  in  the  book  of  tlie  law  of  Moses,"  the  code  of 
Deuteronomy  being  obviously  referred  to  (Deut.  xxiv. 
16).  A  few  chapters  later  we  are  informed  concerning 
the  mixed  peoples  whom  the  king  of  Assyria  trans- 
planted to  the  northern  kingdom,  that  they  did  not 
"  after  the  law  and  commandment  which  the  Lord 
commanded  the  children  of  Jacob,  whom  he  named 
Israel ;  with  whom  the  Lord  had  made  a  covenant  and 
charged  them  saying.  Ye  shall  not  fear  other  gods  .  .  . 
but  the  Lord  who  brought  you  up  out  of  the  land 
of  Egypt.  .  .  .  And  the  statutes,  and  the  ordinances, 
and  the  law,  and  the  commandment  which  he  wrote 
for  you,  ye  shall  observe  to  do  for  evermore ;  and  ye. 
shall  not  fear  other  gods  (2  Kings  xvii.  34-37  ;  cf.  Deut. 
xiii.  4  with  vs.  36).  Moreover,  there  is  so  much 
said  of  writing,  as  of  letters  and  of  books,  in  all  this 
period  from  Samuel  down  (i  Sam.  x.  25  ;  2  Sam.  i.  18; 
xi.  14,  15  ;  I  Kings  xi.  41  ;  xxi.  8  ;  2  Kings  v.  5  ;  x.  i  ; 
XX.  12;  cf.  Ex.  xvii.  14;  xxxii.  32,  33  ;  Num.  v.  23;  xxi 
14;  Deut.  xxvii.  8;  xxxi.  9;  Josh.  x.  13  ;  xviii.  9),  that 
it  would  have  been  no  surprise  to  us  to  read,  as  we  do 
(2  Kings  xxii.  3),  that  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  King 
Josiah,  on  the  occasion  of  certain  repairs  in  the  temple, 
the  high-priest,  Hilkiah,  found  there  "  the  book  of  the 
law,"  even  if  the  Pentateuch  had  not  already  instructed 
us  (Num.  xvii.  22;  Deut.  xvii.  18;  xxxi.  9,  25,  26;  cf. 
Josh.  xxiv.  26)  that  it  had  been  originally  deposited 
beside  the  ark. 

But  still  further,  and  still  more  directly  to  the  point, 
to  go  back  once  more  to  the  beginning,  there  is  the 
central  and  indisputable   fact   that,  during   the   whole 


The  Lazv  and  the  Historical  Books.  35 1 

period  of  the  judges,  including  the  hfe  of  Samuel,  the 
Mosaic  institutions  of  a  national  sanctuary  and  a 
national  Aaronic  priesthood  existed  and  were  governed, 
as  far  as  the  sacred  history  informs  us,  in  essential 
accordance  with  the  Pentateuch  legislation.  Nowhere, 
for  example,  in  the  Book  of  Judges  is  there  more  than 
one  "house  of  the  Lord  "  spoken  of  (xix.  18).  Except- 
ing for  a  brief  period  and  under  extraordinary  circum- 
stances this  was  at  Shiloh  (Judges  xviii.  31  ;  i  Sam.  ii. 
29).^  Here  Phinehas,  grandson  of  Aaron,  officiated  as 
priest  (Judges  xx.  28),  and  here  the  annual  festivals 
were  duly  and  consecutively  celebrated  (Judges  xxi.  19; 
I  Sam.  i.  3,  7  ;  ii.  14,  19).  Eli  and  his  sons  are  recog- 
nized as  lineal  descendants  of  Aaron  and  as  called  to 
the  priesthood  solely  on  that  account  (i  Sam.  ii.  27,  28; 
xxii.  20  ;  I  Kings  ii.  27).  They  dwell  at  Shiloh,  where 
the  "tabernacle  of  the  congregation"  (i  Sam.  ii.  22) 
containing  the  ark  and  other  furniture  of  the  Mosaic 
structure  are  found  (i  Sam.  iv.  4 ;  cf.  Ex.  xxv.  22  ; 
Num.  vii.  89).  It  has  the  altar  (i  Sam.  ii.  29),  the 
"lamp  of  God"  (i  Sam.  iii.  3),  and  the  table  of  shew- 
bread  (i  Sam.  xxi.  5).  Here  the  fat  pieces  of  animals 
are  incensed  or  offered  up  by  fire  (i  Sam.  ii.  15,  28). 
Here,  before  the  door  of  the  "  tabernacle  of  the  con- 
gregation," as  of  old,  the  people  assemble  (ii.  22)  to 
tithe  the  tenth  (i  Sam.  viii.  15,  17),  vow  their  vows 
(i  Sam.  i.  II),  and  bring  to  the  Lord  meal-offerings, 
burnt-offerings,  peace-offerings,  and  trespass-offerings, 
all  of  which  forms  of  sacrifice  are  recognized  in  the 
first  ten  chapters  of  i   Samuel. 

It  is  claimed  that  at  this  time  the  distinction  between 
priest  and  layman  did  not  exist.     But  we  find,  on  the 

1  That  its  being  elsewhere  w.is  exceptional  is  evident  from  wh.it  is  said  in  Judges  xx.  27. 
This  verse,  moreover,  shows  that  "  Bethel  "  and  not  "  house  of  God  "  is  the  proper  ren- 
dering in  the  preceding  verse. 


3^2        The  PentateiicJi :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

contrary,  the  people  holding  the  officiating  priests 
amenable,  in  their  service,  to  established  regulations 
and  warmly  resenting  innovations  regarded  as  in 
defiance  of  law  (i  Sam.  ii.  13-17;  cf.  Deut.  xviii.  3; 
Lev.  vii.  31,  32).  We  find  the  priests  using  some 
peculiar  implements  of  the  ancient  tabernacle  which 
are  scarcely  mentioned  elsewhere  outside  the  code  of 
the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  (i  Sam.  ii.  13,  14; 
cf.  Ex.  xxvii.  3  ;  xxxviii.  3  ;  Num.  iv.  14).  We  see 
them  habited  in  the  priestly  vestments  appointed  by  the 
great  lawgiver,  the  high-priest,  it  is  to  be  especially 
noted,  in  the  ephod  with  its  dazzling  breastplate  con- 
taining the  Urim  and  Thummim  (i  Sam.  ii.  28  ;  xiv.  3  ; 
xxi.  10;  xxviii.  6,  15  ;  cf.  Ex.  xxviii.  30;  Lev.  viii.  8; 
Num.  xxvii.  18-21  ;  Deut.  xxxiii.  8).  And,  finally,  we 
are  able,  with  reasonable  certainty,  to  identify  nearly 
every  incumbent  of  the  high-priest's  office  from  the 
time  of  Aaron  to  that  of  David  as  well  as  from  David 
to  the  Babylonian  exile. ^ 

Such  a  mass  of  evidence,  now,  as  is  here  furnished 
in  favor  of  the  existence  of  what  was  most  charac- 
teristic in  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  cannot  be 
set  aside  by  simple  assertions  to  the  contrary.  It 
is  not  enough  that  men  tell  us  that,  in  their  opinion, 
the  histories  have  been  worked  over  in  a  later 
period  in  the  spirit  of  later  institutions.  We  want 
proof,  at  least  as  clear  as  that  which  we  give,  that 
the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  ever  existed  in  any  other 
form  than  in  that  in  which  we  now  find  them.  We 
want  positive  historical  testimony  that  this  process  of 
working  over,  in  the  manner  thus  indicated,  was  ever 

^  Cf.  s.z'.  "  Hbhepriester "  in  Riehm's  Handworterbitch,  etc.;  idem.  s.v.  "  Zadok." 
Passages  of  the  historical  books  on  which  the  principal  dependence  is  placed  are  Judges 
XX.  28;  Num.  XXV.  13;  I  Chron.  v.  27-41;  vi.  35-38;  i  Sam.  xiv.  3;  xxi.  i;  xxii.  9; 
I  Kings  ii.  26.     See  also  art.  "  High-priest'"  in  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary. 


TIte  L,azv  and  the  Historical  Books.  353 

so  much  as  attempted  by  a  biblical  writer  of  the  later 
day.  A  single  accredited  sample  of  such  work  actually 
done,  with  names  and  dates,  is  certainly  not  too  much 
to  ask  of  an  hypothesis  which  so  upsets  all  our 
I^revious  conceptions  of  the  character  and  method  of 
biblical  writers.  "  No  man  rendeth  a  piece  from  a  new 
garment  and  putteth  it  upon  an  old  garment  ;  else  he 
will  rend  the  new,  and  also  the  piece  from  the  new  will 
not  agree  with  the  old.  And  no  man  putteth  new  wine 
into  old  wineskins,  else  the  new  wine  will  burst  the 
skins,  and  itself  will  be  spilled,  and  the  skins  will 
perish "  (Luke  v.  36,  37). 

Moreover,  with  such  a  mass  of  evidence  in  support  of 
the  old  theory,  which  is  also  the  acknowledged  teaching 
of' the  Scriptures  themselves,  that  the  Torah  in  all  its- 
essential  features  is  Mosaic,  there  is  no  difficulty  in 
accounting  for  what  is  exceptional  and  anomalous  in  the 
records.  Having  the  law,  one  can  measure  the  depart- 
ures from  it,  and  having  the  history,  one  can  readily 
account  for  such  departures.  The  difficulties,  on  the 
other  hand,  begin  and  multiply  to  an  extent  that  is  quite 
disheartening  the  moment  we  begin  to  investigate  on 
the  principle  that  the  records  are  anything  else  rather 
than  a  bona  fide  account  of  things  as  they  really  were  ; 
that  the  men  who  had  to  do  with  them  were  of  a 
character  diametrically  opposed  to  that  of  the  Psalmist 
who  wrote  :  "  Who,  O  Jehovah !  shall  be  a  guest  in  thy 
Tabernacle .''  Who  shall  dwell  in  thy  holy  mountain } 
He  that  walketh  blamelessly,  and  doeth  justice,  and 
speaketh  truthfully  in  his  heart"  (Ps.  xv.  i,  2.) 

During  the  period  of  the  judges  we  find  positively 
nothing,  all  the  circumstances  being  considered,  that 
has  even  the  appearance  of  illegality  which  is  not  con- 
demned as  illegal.     The  sacrifice  at  Bochim  was  in  the 


354       The  PentateucJi:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

presence  of  "  the  angel  of  the  Lord,"  if  not  of  the  ark 
itself.  The  altar  that  Gideon  built  at  Ophrah  was 
solely  as  a  monument  (of.  Ex.  xvii.  15  ;  Josh.  xxii.  16, 
26  f.),  as  the  context,  where  one  of  another  sort  is 
referred  to,  shows  (Judges  vi.  24,  25  f.).  There  is  no 
evidence  that  it  was  ever  used  for  sacrifice.  Manoah's 
offering  in  the  open  field  was  in  recognition  of  a 
theophany,  and  hence  in  perfect  harmony  with  Ex. 
XX.  24,  and  with  the  other  codes. 

Micah  was  a  confessed  idolater  as  well  as  thief 
(Judges  xvii.  5,  12).  His  actions  prove  conclusively 
that  a  semi-priestly  character  was  then  accorded  to 
Levites.  That  they  were  regarded  as  actual  priests  it 
does  not  prove.  Their  position  throughout  the  book  is 
wholly  consonant  with  that  assigned  them  in  the  Penta- 
teuch (xix.  i.).  Gideon's  "  ephod  "  that  he  made  of  the 
earrings  taken  in  battle  is  stigmatized  as  idolatrous  by 
epithets  worthy  of  an  Isaiah  (Judges  viii.  24-27.)  The 
expression  "before  the  Lord"  cannot  justly  be  under- 
stood to  refer  to  an  established  sanctuary  (Judges  xi. 
II  ;  XX.  I  ;  cf.  I  Sam.  xxiii.  18  ;  i  Kings  iii.  6;  2  Chron. 
xiv.  12;  Neh.  i.  4,  and  many  other  passages).  The  ark 
itself,  indeed,  may  to  some  extent  have  been  carried 
about  from  place  to  place  during  this  period,  as  we 
know  it  was  in  the  following  one  (with  Judges  xx. 
27,  31  cf.  I  Sam.  iv.  3;  Num.  x.  35).  Worship, 
combined  with  animal  sacrifices  in  its  presence,  was, 
of  course,  the  very  thing  authorized  by  every  phase  of 
the  Pentateuch  laws  (Judges  xx.  26,  27 ;  xxi.  4). 

So  when  we  turn  to  the  Books  of  Samuel  and  the 
Kings,  it  is  the  presence  or  the  absence  of  the  ark 
which  justifies  everything  that  is  normal  and  sufficiently 
explains  everything  that  is  abnormal  in  the  history. 
Whether  at  Shiloh,  or  in  the  hands  of  the  Philistines,  at 


The  Lazv  and  the  Historical  Books.  355 

Kirjath-jearim  or  on  Mount  Zion,  it  is  everywhere  and 
always,  "the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,"  the  silent  witness 
from  the  period  of  the  exodus.  There  is  but  one  such 
ark  in  Israelitish  history,  and  it  renders  that  history  in 
its  main  features,  especially  in  its  characteristic  religious 
features,  indivisible  and  unimpeachable.  The  secret  of 
the  books  is  the  secret  of  the  ark  which  stored  them 
and  between  whose  cherubim  dwelt  Jehovah  of  hosts. 
At  Shiloh  we  find  the  ark  in  its  accustomed  place 
within  the  tabernacle.  It  is  the  old  tabernacle  as  well 
as  the  old  Mosaic  "Ark  of  the  Covenant."  It  bears  its 
Pentateuch  title,  "the  tent  of  meeting"  (i  Sam,  ii.  22; 
cf.  Ex.  xxix.  4).  It  is  not,  as  has  been  affirmed,^  a 
house  with  posts  and  doors.  It  was  to  the  prophet 
Nathan,  considerably  later,  that  the  message  came  from 
the  Lord,  saying,  "  I  have  not  dwelt  in  a  house  since 
the  time  that  I  brought  up  the  children  of  Israel  out  of 
Egypt,  even  to  this  day,  but  have  walked  in  a  tent  and 
in  a  tabernacle  (2  Sam.  vii.  6  ;  cf.  i  Sam.  i.  9;  iii.  15). 
Our  critics  have  simply  confounded  the  inclosure  of  the 
tabernacle  with  the  tabernacle  itself.  And  they  make 
mistakes  even  less  excusable  when  they  afifirm  that 
because  it  is  said  of  Samuel  that  he  slept  within  this 
inclosure,  he  must  have  slept  in  the  presence  of  the 
ark ;  and  that  when  it  is  narrated  of  Hannah  that  she 
made  her  little  son  a  coat  of  linen,  it  betrays  an 
infringement  of  the  "  Priests'  Code,"  which  allows  such 
a  garment  only  to  the  highest  ecclesiastic.^  An  "  ephod  " 
it  is  called,  to  be  sure,  as  is  the  garment  which  David 
wore  when  he  danced  before  the  ark  (i  Sam.  ii.  18;  2 
Sam.  vi.  14),  but  a  "linen  ephod"  in  both  cases,  which 
was  a  very  different  thing  from  that  which  formed  a 
principal  article  of    the   high-priest's  official    costume. 

*  Smith,  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,  p.  258  f.  ^  Smith,  ibid.  p.  259. 


356        Tlie  PcntateucJi :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

And  when  we  carefully  scan  in  the  succeeding  history 
the  list  of  alleged  transgressions  of  Pentateuch  laws, 
especially  that  of  sacrificial  worship  at  a  central  altar, 
it  will  be  found  that  not  a  single  one  of  these  cases 
occurs  before  a  certain  fixed  date,  and  that  there  is  not 
one  that  is  not  clearly  disapproved  after  another  fixed 
date.  The  close  of  the  first  period  is  definitely  marked 
by  the  capture  of  the  ark  at  Shiloh  ;  the  beginning  of 
the  second,  by  the  erection  and  dedication  of  the  temple 
at  Jerusalem.  Between  these  two  points,  a  space  of 
not  far  from  a  hundred  years,  are  found  clustered 
together  the  most  of  those  anomalies  on  which  such 
extraordinary  conclusions  have  been  based.  ^  Anomalies 
occurred  then  simply  because  the  times  were  anomalous. 
The  capture  of  the  ark  by  the  Philistines,  and  its 
subsequent  obscuration  and  neglect  throughout  the 
remainder  of  Samuel's  regency  and  the  whole  of  Saul's 
reign,  equally  signalized  a  period  of  dreadful  spiritual 
relapse  on  the  part  of  Israel,  the  abandonment  of 
covenant  obligations,  and  a  temporary  suspension  of 
the  laws  of  the  covenant.  "  Ichabod  "  !  was  the  dying 
exclamation  of  Eli's  daughter-in-law.  "The  glory  is 
departed  from  Israel;  for  the  ark  of  God  is  taken" 
(i  Sam.  iv.  19-22).  "  God  was  wroth  with  his  inher- 
itance," says  the  Psalmist,  referring  to  the  same  event, 
"  so  that  he  forsook  the  tabernacle  of  Shiloh,  the  tent 
which  he  placed  among  men"  (Ps.  Ixxviii.  58-62). 

*  "  There  is  not  from  Joshua  to  Samuel  a  recorded  instance  of  sacrifice  elsewhere  than 
at  Shiloh  which  is  not  explicitly  declared  to  have  been  offered  either  in  presence  of  the 
ark  or  in  connection  with  an  immediate  manifestation  of  the  presence  of  Jehovah  or  of 
the  Angel  of  Jehovah.  And  no  sacrifice  was  offered  by  any  one  not  a  descendant  of 
Aaron,  except  when  Jehovah  or  the  Angel  of  Jehovah  had  appeared  to  him.  The  only 
exceptions  are  expressly  characterized  by  the  sacred  historian  as  open  and  flagrant 
transgressions  of  known  law:  as  the  idolatry  at  Ophrah  (Judges  viii.  27)  and  that  of  the 
renegade  Micah  (xvii.  5),  not  to  speak  of  apostasy  to  Baal  and  Ashtoreth  which  is  repro- 
bated and  chastised  from  the  beginning  to  the  end.  The  Book  of  Judges  does  not  contain 
a  trace  of  sanctioned,  or  even  tolerated,  worship  upon  high-places."  —  Professor  Green, 
Moses  and  the  Prophets.,  p.  137  f. 


TJie  Lazv  and  the  Historical  Books.  357 

Statute  law,  for  the  time  being,  whose  support  and 
sanction  was  the  God  who  dwelt  between  the  cherubim, 
gave  way  to  common  law,  and  men  returned  to  customs 
that  ruled  before  the  days  of  Moses.  This,  indeed, 
along  with  outward  afflictions,  was  the  providential 
means  intended  to  bring  back  the  people  to  a  sense  of 
their  obligation  and  their  need.  And  it  succeeded. 
They  "lamented  after  the  Lord"  (i  Sam.  vii.  2)  and  by 
this  very  discipline  were  prepared,  as  they  could  not 
otherwise  have  been,  to  understand  the  spiritual 
significance  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem. 

It  is  thus,  then,  that  we  explain  the  fact  of  Samuel's 
sacrificing  at  Mizpeh,  Ramah,  Bethlehem,  Gilgal,  and 
possibly  other  places  (i  Sam.  vii.  5-9,  16;  x.  8  ;  xi.  14, 
15  ;  xvi.  2  ff.),  and  that  he  did  it  while  the  tabernacle 
was  at  Nob  and  even  after  the  ark  had  been  brought 
back  to  Kirjath-jearim.  He  acted  on  the  principle  that 
a  central  sanctuary  no  longer  existed.  Its  law  he 
regarded  as  for  the  time  being  in  abeyance.  In  fact, 
the  original  conditions  of  its  observance  were  no  longer 
present  (Deut.  xii.  10).  It  is  everywhere  assumed, 
moreover,  that  in  doing  so  he  was  divinely  directed  ; 
that  just  as  really  as  Moses  in  mediating  the  laws, 
Samuel  was  an  extraordinary  agent  of  Jehovah  in 
temporarily  suspending  them.  To  obey  was  better 
than  sacrifice  (i   Sam.  xv.  22,  23). 

And  as  it  concerns  the  sacrificial  worship  offered  at 
various  places  by  others,  as  by  David's  family  at  Bethle- 
hem (i  Sam.  XX.  6),  Absalom  at  Hebron  ( .?  2  Sam.  xv. 
7-9),  David  himself  at  the  threshing-floor  of  Araunah 
(2  Sam.  xxiv.  18),  Adonijah  at  En-rogel  (i  Kings  i.  7-9), 
Solomon  at  Gibeon  (r  Kings  iii.  4),  Elijah  on  Carmel 
(l  Kings  xviii.),  when  they  arc  not  represented,  as  in 
the  last  case,  to  be  in  obedience  to  a  divine  command 


358        TJie  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

(vs.  36),  they  may  be  looked  upon,  one  and  all,  as  simply 
illustrating  the  principle  ncccssitas  non  habet  legem. 
There  existed  no  one  place  in  this  period  of  the  retire- 
ment of  the  ark  from  its  accustomed  and  historic 
position  which  was  really  more  legitimate  and  author- 
ized than  another. 

Just  this  absence  of  a  legal  sanction  for  worship 
previous  to  the  time  of  Solomon  is  indicated  by  the 
writer  of  the  Books  of  Kings  when  he  says  :  "  Only  the 
people  sacrificed  in  high-places,  because  there  was  no 
house  built  unto  the  name  of  the  Lord  until  those 
days  "  (i  Kings  iii.  2).  Its  potency  as  a  rally ing-point 
had  pui'posely  and  as  a  punisJimoit  of  disobedience  been 
withdrawn  from  the  ark ;  it  was  only  restored  and  this 
sacred  object  again  became  the  appointed  meeting- 
place  of  God  and  his  people  after  its  establishment 
within  the  consecrated  temple  (i  Kings  xiv.  21).^ 
Sporadic  worship  at  these  various  places  did  not  con- 
stitute them  sanctuaries  in  the  same  sense  that  the 
ark  had  been  a  sanctuary.  Their  sole  justification  was 
necessity.  And  the  moment  the  necessity  ceased,  they 
cease  to  be  accorded  even  a  ^//^j-Z-sanction.^ 

1  That  men  who  are  not  priests  should  offer  sacrifices  may  be  looked  upon,  indeed,  as 
irregular  (Lev.  i.  9  f.;  v.  8  f.) ;  but  even  the  most  stringent  regulations  of  the  "  Priests' 
Code  "  do  not  absolutely  forbid  it.  Others  than  priests,  therefore,  on  special  and  extra- 
ordinary occasions,  might  officiate  in  this  capacity,  without  offending  against  the  Mosaic 
regulations.  Still  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that,  in  several  instances  which  we  find  in 
the  history  where  persons  are  spoken  of  as  offering  sacrifices,  the  meaning  is  not  that  they 
luid  sacrifices  offered.  Qiii  facit  fer  alium,  facit  per  se.  The  case  of  Saul  (i  Sam. 
xiv.  33-35)  is  not  one  of  proper  sacrifice. 

2  It  was  probably  with  reference  to  the  temple  which  he  proposed  to  build  (2  Sam.  vii.) 
that  David,  when  he  brought  up  the  ark  from  Kirjath-jearim,  did  not  a^o  bring  up  the 
tabernacle  from  Gibeon  (2  Sam.  vi.  17).  The  tent  which  he  pitched  in  the  city  of  David 
was  meant  to  foreshadow  the  future  home  of  the  ark  and  centre  the  nation's  attention  upon 
it.  This  purpose  o£  David  was  providentially  greatly  forwarded,  when  the  treachery  of 
Abiathar  furnished  Solomon  with  an  occasion  for  removing  him  from  his  post  as  high- 
priest  on  Zion  and  putting  in  his  place  the  loyal  Zadok,  who  hitherto  had  acted  in  this 
capacity  in  connection  with  the  tabernacle  in  Gibeon  (i  Kings  ii.  26  f . ;  cf.  i  Chron.  xvi. 
39;  xxiv.  3;  2  Sam.  viii.  17;  xv.  24-29,  35;  xx.  25;  and  s.v.  "  Zadok,"  in  Riehm's  Ha/id- 
wdrterbuch,  etc.).  With  the  anomaly  of  a  dual  high-priesthood  it  was  doubtless  meant  to 
put  an  end  also  to  the  equal  anomaly  of  tmlegalized,  as  well  as  illegal,  worship  in  Israel. 


The  Law  and  the  Historical  Books.  359 

There  is  no  sign  in  the  biblical  books  that  subsequent 
to  the  dedication  of  the  temple  worship  in  other  places 
was  approved.  Here  the  writer  of  Kings  is  of  one 
mind  with  the  writer  of  Chronicles  ;  and,  it  may  be 
added,  with  the  Psalter  and  contemporaneous  prophets. 
He  is  obviously  out  of  conceit  with  Asa,  Jehosaphat, 
and  the  other  relatively  good  kings  that  in  their 
reforms  they  stop  short  of  removing  the  high-places 
(i  Kings  XV.  14;  xxii.  43).  This  is  proved  not  alone  by 
referring  to  the  Books  of  Chronicles  (2  Chron.  xiv.  3-5 ; 
xvii.  6),  where  the  whole  matter  is  set  in  the  clearest 
light  ;  but  by  the  way  in  which  the  facts  are  stated  in 
Kings.  After  an  enumeration  of  what  these  men  did 
in  the  direction  of  moral  renovation  that  was  right,  he 
uniformly  adds  :  "  Nevertheless,  the  high-places  were 
not   taken  away." 

Ahaz,  in  fact,  is  directly  blamed  for  sacrificing  in 
the  high-places  (2  Kings  xvi.  4).  It  is  no  evidence 
that  the  kings,  especially  the  good  ones,  inwardly 
approved  of  the  Bamoth  because  they  failed  to 
extirpate  them.  It  is  no  sufficient  evidence  that  there 
was  no  law  and  no  dominant  public  sentiment  already 
formed  against  these  places,  because  at  some  of  the 
Bamoth  Jehovah  himself  was  worshiped  and  the 
ministry  was  by  Levitical  priests  (2  Kings  xviii.  22 ; 
xxiii.  8,  9).  The  circumstances  and  particularly  the 
force  of  inveterate  custom  are  to  be  considered.  It  was 
the  beginning  of  a  period  and  it  was  also  the  end  of 
one.  The  transition  could  not  well  have  been  made 
without  more  or  less  of  such  irregularities  as  we  find 
recorded  in  the  history.  And  as  it  concerns  the 
northern  kingdom,  there  is  nothing  in  its  ecclesiastical 
non-conformity  that  cannot  be  readily  accounted  for  by 
its  political   non-conformity.     The  watchword,   "  What 


360        The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

portion  have  we  in  David  ?  .  .  .  To  your  tents,  O 
Israel,"  which  the  ten  tribes  took  up  in  the  days  of 
Rehoboam,  furnishes  a  key  to  all  their  un-Mosaic  and 
unhistorical  divergences  and  excesses. 

In  fact,  there  is  nothing  so  very  hard  to  understand 
in  this  people's  attitude  toward  the  law  in  any  period, 
if  the  biblical  history,  brief  as  it  is,  be  heartily  accepted. 
It  was  a  people  of  whom  it  is  confessed  by  its  own 
writers  that  it  fell  into  gross  idolatry  in  the  very  pres- 
ence of  Mount  Sinai  and  omitted  for  forty  years  the  first 
necessary  step  toward  the  recognition  of  the  covenant 
by  which  it  had  solemnly  bound  itself,  that  is,  the 
observance  of  the  rite  of  circumcision  (Josh.  v.  2  ff.). 
Its  great  lawgiver  predicted  apostasy  with  his  latest 
breath  (Deut.  xxviii.  f.).  Its  greatest  military  leader 
died  with  admonitions  on  his  lips  (Josh.  xxiv.  14  ff.). 

How  completely  this  untutored  child  which  came  up 
out  of  Egypt  was  dependent  on  its  external  circum- 
stances, particularly  its  immediate  leaders,  for  moral 
stimulus,  could  not  be  more  suggestively  set  forth  than 
in  those  words  which  close  the  Book  of  Joshua  :  "  And 
Israel  served  the  Lord  all  the  days  of  Joshua  and  all 
the  days  of  the  elders  that  overlived  Joshua  and  who 
had  known  all  the  works  of  the  Lord  that  he  had  done 
for  Israel."  There  were  some  hundreds  of  probationary 
years  in  which  there  was  no  Joshua  and  no  such  elders 
with  vivid  memories  of  God's  deeds  ;  when  there  were 
only  Samsons  and  Jephthahs  and  Gideons  ;  men  of  faith 
and  heroism,  it  is  true,  but  certainly  lacking  in  deep 
religious  feeling  and  quickened  consciences  for  the  law 
of  Jehovah. 

Israel's  need  of  worthy  leaders  seemed  never  to  be 
greater  than  when  it  was  without  them.  It  was  in 
closest  contact  with  an  alien  civilization  considerably 


The  Lazv  and  the  Historical  Books.  361 

superior  to  its  own.  It  was  in  a  hand-to-hand  grapple 
with  religious  customs  which  were  fascinating  and 
seductive  to  the  last  degree.  That  it  made  a  sad 
failure  is  not  strange.  That  it  did  not  make  a  total 
failure  is  due  solely  to  direct  providential  interposition. 
Moses  and  Joshua  could  not  come  back  again  ;  but  a 
Samuel  was  raised  up,  and  henceforth  the  forces  that 
contended  against  the  little  Israel  of  Siniatic  memories 
had  the  mighty  line  of  prophets  to  reckon  with.  "  And 
when  [after  the  enthronement  of  David  over  all  Israel] 
more  peaceable  and  settled  times  came,  the  tradition 
was  broken.  Customs,  heathen  and  idolatrous,  or  at 
least  contrary  to  the  law,  had  become  inveterate.  It 
was  found  impossible  to  enforce  laws  which  had  been 
so  long  ignored.  The  revival  of  laws  which  are  old  and 
may  be  deemed  obsolete  is  always  a  difficult  task.  To 
abolish  old  customs  is  beyond  the  power  of  absolute 
kings.  We  may  wonder  that  David  did  not  enforce  the 
exact  observance  of  the  law  of  Moses,  but  the  history 
indicates  that  his  power  over  his  subjects  was  by  no 
means  absolute.  When  the  one  shrine  was  established 
in  Jerusalem,  obedience  to  the  Mosaic  law  and  the 
supremacy  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  would  be  closely  con- 
nected in  the  people's  mind.  Moreover,  David  was  not 
allowed  to  build  the  temple,  apart  from  which  the  cere- 
monial code  could  not  be  carried  out.  If  David's  failure 
to  enforce  the  law  can  be  accounted  for,  the  failure  of 
his  successors  need  cause  us  little  trouble.  His  prac- 
tice was  an  ideal  to  which  they  rarely  attained.  The 
written  law  would  have  no  force  against  immemorial 
custom.  Nothing  less  than  a  revolution,  nothing  less 
than  the  destruction  of  the  national  life  for  a  while, 
could  give  back  to  the  law  its  rightful  authority."  ^ 

1  See  Watson,  The  Law  ami  the  Prophets,  p.  120. 


X. 

THE  LAW  AND  THE  PSALMS. 


In  discussing  the  question,  what  impression,  if  any, 
has  been  left  by  the  Law  upon  the  Book  of  Psalms,  it 
is  important  to  agree,  at  the  outset,  upon  some  general 
principles  which  shall  govern  us,  and  to  fix,  if  possible, 
a  common  point  of  view.  The  Psalms  form  a  col- 
lection. At  what  time,  approximately,  was  this 
collection  closed  .-*  They  are  products  of  various 
periods  and  of  a  considerable  number  of  different 
authors.  Can  the  age  and  authorship  of  a  large  pro- 
portion of  them  be  fixed  with  sufficient  certainty  to 
make  a  discussion  of  this  sort  practicable  and  satis- 
factory ?  More  definitely,  is  the  Book  of  Psalms  pre- 
exilian  in  its  essential  features,  or  is  it  post-exilian  ?  It 
should  not  be  difficult  to  secure  among  biblical  scholars 
a  fair  measure  of  unanimity  in  these  preliminary 
matters. 

First,  as  it  respects  the  collection,  we  have  direct 
evidence  of  its  virtual  completion  previous  to  the  close 
of  the  Persian  period,  that  is,  before  b.c.  333.  We  learn, 
for  example,  from  i  Chron.  xvi.  36,  that  the  Psalter  at 
that  time  was  divided  into  books,  as  at  present,  and 
that  the  doxologies  with  which  these  books  conclude 
had  been  already  added  to  them.  To  affirm  that  no 
composition  could  have  found  its  way  into  the  collection 
after  this  period  would  perhaps  be  unjustifiable.  It  may 
be  said  that  it  cannot  be  proved  that  there  were  any. 


The  Law  and  the  Psalms.  363 

And,  if  there  were  such,  they  were  not  only  exceed- 
ingly few,  but  must  have  been  inserted,  by  exception, 
in  a  collection  looked  upon  as  formally  complete. 

The  position  of  the  Psalter  in  the  ancient  lists  of 
Old  Testament  canonical  books,  at  the  head  of  the 
third  collection,  and  the  fact  that  it  gave  its  name  to 
this  series  is  highly  significant.  The  fact  that  the 
Septuagint  version  (b.c.  284-145)^  has  precisely  the 
same  list  of  psalms,  in  the  same  order,  is  equally  sig- 
nificant. The  fact  that  the  Seventy  ascribed  some  of 
the  psalms  which  they  found  without  note  of  author- 
ship to  David,  others  to  certain  of  the  canonical 
prophets,  but  none  to  a  later  date,  while  leaving  quite 
a  number  to  circulate  in  the  anonymous  form  in  which 
they  had  received  them,  shows  what  opinion  they  held 
respecting  the  antiquity  of  the  Book.^ 

Here,  then,  we  may  establish  one  principal  chrono- 
logical boundary.  The  Book  of  Psalms  was  brought  to 
an  orderly  conclusion  sometime  during  the  Persian 
supremacy.  Its  fivefold  division,  in  imitation  of  the 
Pentateuch,  with  proem  and  praiseful  afterpart,  had 
already,  at  the  date  of  the  Chronicler,  been  given  to  it. 
The  possibility  of  fugitive  Maccabaean  psalms  need  not 
be  disputed,  extremely  doubtful  though  they  be.  A 
Maccabasan  Psalter  is  simply  an  absurdity  to  smile  at. 
The  Hebrew  songs  with  which  the  Maccabaean  heroes 
sometimes  introduced  their  battles  {2  Mace.  xii.  37  ;  xv. 
29)  were  clearly  those  of  Israel's  greatest  warrior, 
David.  The  books  which  they  gathered  together 
after  the  desolating  wars  of  the  Seleucidae  were  the 
books    that    long  before  had  received  the  sanction  of 

»  See  my  discussion  of  its  age  in  The  Apocrypha  of  the  O.  T.  (N.  Y.,  i88o),  p.  i8. 

^  It  is,  of  course,  not  impossible  that  the  Seventy  had  manuscript  authority  for  these 
changes.  The  conclusion  we  draw  from  the  fact  would  not  be  altered  if  it  were  so. 
Jeremiah,  Ezp.kiel,  Haggai,  and  Zechariah  have  certain  psalms  imputed  to  them  (137, 138, 

146-148). 


364       The  Pentateuch  :    Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

the  wisest  and  best  of  their  countrymen  (i  Mace.  i.  56 ; 
2  Mace.  ii.  14). 

But  if  the  Book  of  Psalms  was  completed  not  long 
after  the  return  of  the  exulants  from  Babylon,  it  was 
even  more  certainly  begun  not  later  than  King  David 
and  the  bulk  of  it  written  within  two  hundred  years 
of  his  reign.  Its  core,  and  what  still  forms  the  char- 
acteristic and  greater  portion  of  it,  seems  to  have 
formed,  in  fact,  the  standard  Book  of  Praise  in  the 
temple  of  Solomon.^ 

The  early  history  of  Israel  may  be  said,  without 
exaggeration,  to  abound  in  lyrical  compositions.^  From 
Egypt  the  people  brought  musical  instruments  and  in 
that  land  they  came  in  contact  with  specimens  of  the 
poetic  art  that  are  still  the  admiration  of  the  learned.^ 
The  prophetic  schools  established  by  Samuel  were 
direct  promoters  of  instrumental  music  and  song 
(i  Sam.  xix.  19  f.). 

David,  accordingly,  with  his  natural  taste  for  lyric 
poetry,  was  in  the  best  circumstances  to  attain  a 
remarkable  success  in  its  cultivation.  That  he  was 
devoted  to  it  from  his  youth  there  is  abundant  evidence 
outside  the  Psalter  (2  Sam.  i.  17  f.  ;  iii.  33  f.  ;  xxiii.  1-5). 
His  harp,  a  principal  occasion  for  his  introduction  to 
the  court  of  Saul,  was  no  less  the  solace  of  his  own 
later  years.  One  of  the  favorite  titles  by  which  he  was 
known  among  his  peoiDle  was  "  the  sweet  psalmist  of 
Israel"  {2  Sam.  xxiii.  i).  The  first  result  of  his  anoint- 
ing by  the  prophet  Samuel  seems  to  have  been  a 
higher  uplifting  of  soul  in  sacred  song.  It  is  indispu- 
table that  in  David's  time  music  and  psalmody  reached 

'  It  is  by  no  means  unlikely  that  Psalm  Ixxii.  marks  the   limit  of  an  original   collec- 
tion which  was  for  the  most  part  Davidic.     See  vs.  20. 
2  Cf.,  for  example,  Gen.  iv.  23,  24  ;  Ex.  xv.;  Deut.  xxxii. ;  Judges  v.;   i  Sam.  ii.  10  ff 
2  See  "  Hymn  to  Amen-Ra  "  in  Records  of  the  Past,  ii.  p.  127  ff. 


TJic  Laii)  and  the  Psalms.  365 

their  highest  bloom  in  Israel.  An  orchestra  of  four 
thousand  instruments  accompanied  and  led  the  songs 
of  the  sanctuary  (i  Chron.  xxiii.  5),  The  names  of  his 
choir-leaders,  an  Asaph  and  a  Heman,  were  thought 
worthy  of  an  honor  scarcely  second  to  that  of  a  Joab  or 
an  Abner  (i  Chron.  xxv.).  Even  two  centuries  later, 
in  the  rival  kingdom  of  the  north,  it  was  the  musical 
skill  of  David  that  was  cited  as  the  standard  and 
chief  example  of  high  attainment   (Am.   vi.   5).^ 

It  is  no  surprise,  therefore,  that  we  find  nearly  one 
half  of  the  entire  number  of  psalms  ascribed  to  David 
and  more  than  a  score  of  others  to  his  chief  singers  and 
their  families.  There  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  reject- 
ing these  ancient  superscriptions.  They  have  a  real 
and  unimpeachable  historical  value.  They  give  the 
earliest  accessible  information  respecting  the  origin  of 
the  compositions  to  which  they  are  attached.  They  are 
in  fullest  harmony  with  all  our  a  priori  conclusions. 
They  come  down  to  us,  along  with  the  original  text, 
from  an  age  that  had  already  become  antiquity  when 
the  Septuagint  appeared.  The  very  musical  notes  that 
accompany  them  were  unintelligible  to  the  scholars  of 
the  Maccabaean  times. 

Besides  the  period  of  David  and  his  immediate  suc- 
cessors, there  is  but  one  other  in  Jewish  history  when 
the  writing  of  psalms  could  well  have  flourished :  that 
which  closely  followed  the  exile.  It  was,  at  least,  a 
true  instinct  that  led  the  Greek  translators  to  attach 
the  names  of  post-exilian  prophets  to  some  of  the 
nameless  psalms  which  reached  them.  The  harps 
that  had  been  hung  u})on  the  willows  in  Babylon 
undoubtedly  inspired  the  march  of  the  homeward 
bound  and  beguiled  their  work  of  restoration,      l^ut  the 

'  Cf.  also  the  notable  tribute  of  Sirach's  son,  Ecclus.  xlvii.  8-11. 


366       The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

number  of  post-exilian  psalms,  whether  considered  as 
matter  of  history  or  of  criticism,  cannot  have  been 
large.  They  do  not  predominate  in  the  collection. 
They  may  generally  be  distinguished  from  the  original 
portions  of  it  by  features  that  are  unmistakable. 

On  these  principles,  then,  the  discussion  in  the 
present  paper  will  be  conducted:  (i)  That  a  large 
nucleus,  if  not  the  bulk,  of  the  Book  of  Psalms  origi- 
nated with  David  and  his  immediate  successors.  (2) 
That  the  titles  are  to  be  taken  as  genuine  and  authen- 
tic unless  positive  and  convincing  testimony  to  the 
contrary  can  be  adduced.  (3)  That  it  is  safe  to  argue, 
not  alone  from  individual  psalms,  but  from  the  spirit  and 
teaching  of  the  collection  as  a  whole,  especially  the 
acknowledged  earliest  collection  whose  boundaries  have 
already  been  indicated  (cf.  Ps.  Ixxii.  20).  Within 
these  general  limitations,  simply  taking  care,  in  detail, 
that  no  just  canon  of  biblical  criticism  be  violated,  we 
may  move  alike  with  freedom  and  with  confidence. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  let  attention  be  directed  to  a 
few  apparent  verbal  correspondences  between  a  number 
of  psalms  and  the  Pentateuch,  naturally  implying  the 
priority  of  the  latter.  When,  for  example,  in  the  fifth 
psalm,  which  is  ascribed  to  David,^  we  hear  one  saying, 
"  O  Jehovah !  In  the  morning  thou  shalt  hear  my 
voice ;  in  the  morning  /  will  make  ready  for  thee"  we 
find  the  author  very  fitly  and  beautifully  employing 
the  exact  original  expression  used  in  the  Pentateuch 
for  laying  in  order  the  wood  and  the  victim  on  the 
altar  of  sacrifice  (Gen.  xxii.  9;  Lev.  i.  7,  8;  vi.  5). 
When,  again,  in  another  place  (Ps.  vii.  13),  the  same 
alleged   writer  ^  declares  that,  if  the  sinner  turn  not, 

'  The  contents  of  the  psalm  are  in  no  respect  out  of  harmony  with  the  Davidic  author- 
ship claimed  for  it. 

^  The  psalms  iii.-xLx.,  excepting  only  v.,  vi.,  and  xiv.,  even  Hitzig  regarded  as  forming 
the  genuine  Davidic  kernel  of  the  whole  Psalter. 


The  Law  and  the  Psalms.  367 

God  will  "whet  his  sword"  of  retribution,  the  intense 
realism  and  anthropomorphism  of  the  figure  startle  us 
less,  because  we  recall  the  fact  that  it  likewise  occurs 
in  that  old  and  high-wrought  "  Song  of  Moses  "  which 
crowns  his  closing  work  (Deut.  xxxii.  41  f.).  In  fact, 
this  is  its  only  other  occurrence  in  the  Old  Testament. 
The  eighth  psalm  is  very  generally  conceded  to  be  from 
the  pen  of  David.  It  has  already  been  shown  ^  that 
not  only  the  thought,  but  the  precise  order  of  it, 
is  taken  from  the  biblical  narrative  of  the  creation 
(Gen.  i.  26  f.).  It  was  not  pointed  out,  however,  that 
the  dependence  extends  even  to  the  etymology  of  the 
words  ;  and  that  when  the  Psalmist  speaks  of  the 
Creator  as  making  man  "rule"  over  the  works  of  his 
hands  and  of  putting  them  "all  under  his  feet,"  he  has 
in  mind,  as  it  should  seem,  the  yirdil  and  r^dhit  of 
the  primitive  records  (Gen.  i.  26,  28),  and  insensibly  they 
give  its  peculiar  coloring  to  his  style.  In  the  following 
psalm  (ix.  17  ;~  cf.  xxxviii.  13;  cix.  ii.)  we  read  that 
the  wicked  are  snared  in  the  work  of  their  own  hands. 
The  Hebrew  word  so  translated  is  first  used  in  this 
figurative  sense  in  Deuteronomy  (xii.  30),  where  it  is 
applied  to  the  seductions  of  Canaanitish  idolatry. 

The    remarkable    petition,   a    little    further    on     (Ps. 
xvii.  8), 

"  Keep  me  as  the  pupil  of  the  eye ;  ^ 
Under  the  shadow  of  tliy  wings  liide  mc," 

is  a  second,  and  a  double  one,  of  the  many  echoes  of 
the  sublime  and  most  suggestive  "  Shirah  "  of  Moses, 
found  near  the  close  of  Deuteronomy  (xxxii.  10,  11). 
The  astounding,   not  to  say  paradoxical,  epithet  given 

'  See  the  introductory  paper,  p.  24. 

-  The    fact    that    psahn    ix.    is    acrostic  is    no    evidence  that    it  is  not  Davidlc.     .See 
Pelitzsch,  Com.,  in  loco. 

'  Literally,  "  Utile  man,  ilauijliter  of  the  eye." 


368        The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Strncturi. 

to  Jehovah  in  the  eighteenth  jisalm  ^  (vs.  3)  and  often 
elsewhere  in  the  collection,  "  My  rock  in  whom  I  take 
refuge,"  is  from  the  same  prolific  source  (Deut.  xxxii.  4, 
n).  There  is  nothing  more  marked  in  the  Hebrew 
poetical  literature  of  the  later  times,  or  more  full  of 
sparkle,  it  may  be  added,  than  these  gems  borrowed 
from  the  ancient  songs.  Their  setting  may  be  changed, 
but  they  have  a  lustre,  wherever  found,  peculiarly  their 
own.  Here  is  one,  for  instance,  from  the  memorable 
paean  of  victory  chanted  by  the  Israelites  on  their 
escape  from  Pharaoh  and  the  Red  Sea.  It  is  set  in  the 
crown  of  the  composition  :  "  Jehovah  is  a  man  of  war, 
Jehovah  is  his  name"  (Ex.  xv.  3).  Who  could  ever 
forget  the  bold  metaphor  .?  There  is  scarcely  any  end 
to  the  changes  that  are  rung  upon  it  from  Moses  (Deut. 
xxxii.  41  f.)  down.  To  David,  himself  a  man  of  war, 
it  offered  the  very  thought  he  needed  for  many  an 
impassioned  utterance  like  that  which  introduces  the 
following  outburst  (Ps.  xxxv.  1,2):  — 

"Strive  thou,  O  Jehovah!  with  them  that  strive  with  me; 
Fight  against  them  that  fight  against  me. 
Grasp  the  shield  and  buckler, 
And  arise  in  my  defence." 

In  a  context  rich  in  reminiscences  of  the  Pentateuch 
we  find  in  still  another  psalm  (Iv.  4)  a  rare  expression, 
which,  outside  the  history  of  Jacob  and  Joseph,  appears 
only  in  the  Book  of  Job.  "With  a  hatred  relentless 
as  that  of  Esau  and  unnatural  as  that  of  Joseph's 
brethren,"  the  hunted  fugitive  seems  to  say:  — 

'■'■They  threaten-  me  with  evil, 
And  angrily  assail  me." 

1  The  genuineness  of  the  title  which  ascribes  the  composition  to  David  is  supported  by 
?  Sam.  xxii.,  where  also  the  psalm  is  found. 

2  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  figure  of  Ahithophel  is  before  David's  mind  and  calls 
forth  the  significant  word  from  the  patriarchal  narratives  (Gen.  xxvii.  41;  xlix.  23;  1.  15). 


The  Law  and  the  Psabns.  3(39 

To  the  Israelite  of  the  exodus  what  more  suggestive 
or  thriUing  sight,  whether  in  camp  or  field,  the  Ark  of 
the  Covenant  perhaps  alone  excepted,  than  the  waving 
pennants  of  the  several  tribes  (cf.  Num.  i.  52  ;  ii.  2  ;  x. 
14)  !  We  cannot  well  be  mistaken  therefore  in  suppos- 
ing, especially  in  view  of  the  extreme  rarity  of  the 
term,  that  it  was  with  a  direct  historic  outlook  and 
inspiration  that  David  wrote  the  stirring  challenge 
(Ps.  XX.  6)  :  — 

"We  shout  for  joy  in  thy  salvation; 
In  the  name  of  our  God  we  display  our  tannery  ^ 

Such  are  simple  specimens  of  the  influence  favorite 
wo.rds  and  expressions  of  the  earliest  Hebrew  literature 
seem  to  have  left  on  the  earliest  compositions  of  the 
Psalter.  They  might  easily  be  multiplied.  They  are 
no  unimportant  element  in  the  criticism  and  should  not 
be  overlooked.  If  they  stood  alone  they  would  not  be 
without  their  value.  They  represent,  however,  the 
weakest  and  humblest  in  that  rich  chorus  of  voices 
which  throughout  the  Psalms  bears  witness  to  the 
overshadowing  influence  of  the  Mosaic  literature. 

Attention  is  called  accordingly,  in  the  next  place,  to 
some  of  the  abundant  allusions  within  the  same  limited 
range  of  primitive  psalms  to  fundamental  facts  of 
Pentateuch  history.  If  we  mistake  not,  the  history  of 
Joseph  is  referred  to  in  the  proem  of  the  collection 
(i.  3,  last  clause).^  In  the  third  psalm,'^  when  it  is 
said  :  "  l^ut  thou,  O  Jehovah  !  art  a  shield  about  me," 
the  great  promise  made  to  Abraham  in  Genesis  (xv.  i  ; 

1  The  word  dnghal  is  at  home  in  Numbers,  but  outside  our  psahn  is  nowhere  else 
found,  except  in  Canticles. 

-It  was  written  before  Jeremiah"  denn  Jeremia  kannte  ihn;  das  Fhich-und  Segens- 
wort,  Jer.  xvii.  5-8,  ist  wie  cine  auslegende  und  aussmiickende  Paraphrase." —  Delitzsch. 
Com.,  ill  loco.     Cf.  Gen.  xxxix.  3,  23. 

^  It  is  entitled  l"  Dkavidh,  and  internal  characteristics  support  the  tr.nditioa 


3/0       The  Pentatetich  :  Its  Oi'igin  and  Structure. 

cf.  Deut.  xxxiii.  29)  is  clearly  reflected.  Further  on,  in 
the  same  poem  (vs.  8),  Moses'  notable  formula  of  invo- 
cation before  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,  as  it  took  its 
appointed  place  in  advance  of  the  host,  is  called  to 
mind,  as  often  elsewhere  in  our  book,  in  the  impas- 
sioned QuindJi  Y^JwvdJi,  "  Arise,  O  Jehovah  "  (Num.  x. 
35  ;  cf.  Ps.  vii.  7 ;  ix.  20).  In  the  following  psalm  (vs. 
4),^  the  circumstance  of  which  so  much  is  made  in 
the  Book  of  Exodus  (xi.  7,  etc.),  that  God  had  "  put 
a  difference  "  between  Israel  and  its  oppressors,  seems 
to  be  reflected  in  the  sentiment,  "  Jehovah  keepeth 
apart  his  beloved  for  himself,"  the  unfamiliar  word 
of  the  earlier  work  reappearing  in  the  later.  In 
the  immediate  context  (vs.  7),  too,  the  oft-recurring 
priestly  benediction  (Num.  vi.  26  f.)  is  paraphrased 
and  other  evidences  of  the  Torah's  influence  are  not 
wanting. 

Then  follow  in  succession  references,  as  it  should 
seem,  to  the  memorable  commission  of  Moses  respect- 
ing Amalek  (Ps.  ix.  6;  cf.,  in  the  original,  Ex.  xvii. 
14-16  ;  Deut.  XXV.  17  f.)  ;  to  the  blessing  of  Noah  (Ps. 
ix.  13  ;  cf.  Gen.  ix.  5)  ;  the  formation  of  man  from  dust 
(Ps.  ix.  18  ;  cf.  Gen.  iii.  19)  ;  the  overthrow  of  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah  (Ps.  xi.  6  ;  cf.  Gen.  xix.  24  f)  ;  ^  to  the 
deluge  (Ps.  xiv.  2;^  cf.  Ps.  xxix.  10;  Gen.  xi.  5  ;  xviii. 
21) ;  the  extraordinary  condescension  of  Jehovah  to  his 
servant  Moses  in  the  matter  of  the  vision  (Ps.  xvii.  15  ; 
cf.  Ex.  xxxiii.  20  ;  Num.  xii.  8)  ;  the  exposure  of  Moses 
in  his  infancy  (Ps.  xviii.  17;  cf.  Ex.  ii.  10,  MdshdJi)  ;  td 
the  sublime  record  of  the  creation  (Ps.  xxiv.  2  ;  cf.  Gen. 

1  There  is  no  reason  for  disputing  the  title  which  calls  Psalm  iv.  a  "  psalm  of  David." 

'  Psalm  xi.  is  acknowledged  by  Ewald  and  Hitzig  to  be  Davidic. 

3 Of  Psalm  xiv.  Delitzsch  says:  "  In  dem  Verwerfungsurtheil  liber  die  sittlich-religiose 
Beschaffenheit  der  gegenwartigen  Menschheit  welches  Psalm  14  niit  Psalm  12  gemein  hat, 
liegt  zugleich  einu  Bestatigung  fiir  das  /''  Dhavidh  beider;   14:7  aber  nothig  uns  nicht  in  ' 
die  Zeit  des  £xils  hinab."  —  Com.,  iii  loco. 


TJic  Lazv  cnid  tlic  Psalms.  37 1 

i.  I,  2,  9  ;  Ps.  xxxiii.  6)  ;  ^  to  Jehovah's  memorable  testi- 
mony concerning  Abraham  (Ps.  xxv.  14;  cf.  Gen.  xviii, 
1 7)  ;  2  the  famine  that  drove  the  family  of  Jacob  into 
Egypt  (Ps.  xxxvii.  19  ;  see  word  for  "famine"  here  and 
found  elsewhere  in  Gen.  xlii.  19,  33  only)  ;'^  to  the 
translation  of  Enoch  (Ps.  xlix.  16;  cf.  Gen.  v.  24);* 
the  solemn  ceremonies  attending  the  ratification  of 
the  covenant  at  Sinai  (Ps.  1.  5  ;  cf.  Ex.  xxiv.  5-8)  ; '"'  the 
confusion  of  tongues  at  Babel  (Ps.  Iv.  10  ;  cf.  Gen.  x. 
25  ;  ^  Jacob's  halting-places  on  his  return  from  Padan 
Aram  (Ps.  Ix.  8,  9;  cf.  Gen.  xxxiii.  17,  18)/  and  to  the 
passage  of  the  Red  Sea  after  the  deliverance  from 
Egypt  (Ps.  Ixvi.  II,  12).^  Within  the  compass  of  the 
first  seventy  psalms,  that  is,  in  a  series  of  compositions 
ascribed  almost  without  exception  to  King  David,  and 
none  of  them  containing  matter  in  conflict  with  such  a 
claim,  we  find  apparent  references  to  such  momentous 
events  in  Pentateuch  history  as  the  creation  of  the 
world  and  of  man,  the  translation  of  Enoch,  the  Deluge, 
the  blessing  of  Noah,  the  confusion  of  tongues,  promi- 
nent incidents  in  the  life  of  Abraham  and  of  Jacob,  the 
fiery  judgment  on  the  cities  of  the  plain,  the  bondage 
in  Egypt  and  the  miraculous  deliverance  from  it,  to 
Moses  by  a  singular  allusion  to  the  origin  of  his  name, 
as  well  as  other  personal  references,  and  to  the  solemn 
giving  of  the  law  at  Sinai.  Scarcely  a  leading  fact  or 
personage,  indeed,  is  overlooked.     And  yet,  to  appear 

'  Ewald  and  Hitzig  agree  with  DeliUsch  in  ascribing  Psalm  xxiv.  to  David. 

'  Psalm  xxv.  contains  nothing  inconsistent  with  Davidic  authorship. 

8  Psalm  xxxvii.  is  said  to  be  "  by  David,"  and  Delitzsch  pronounces  it  worthy  of  him. 

*  Psalm  xlix.  is  by  the  "sons  of  Korah."  It  has  the  doctrinal  coloring  of  the  Davidic 
psalms  and  need  not  be  much  later. 

''Psalm  1.  is  "  by  Asaph,"  but  has  no  signs  of  a  late  period  (cf.  2  Chron.  xxix.  39). 

*■  Psalm  Iv.  is  said  to  be  "  by  David,"  though  Hitzig  refers  it  to  the  lime  of  Jeremiah. 

'  Psalm  Ix.  refers  to  David's  war  with  the  allied  Syrians  and  .Vmmonites. 

*The  allusion  to  instrumental  accompaniment  in  the  title  points  at  least  to  a  pre- 
exilian  origin  for  the  psalm. 


3/2        TJic  PciitateiicJi :    Its  Origin  and  Structnfe. 

ance,  it  is  wholly  fortuitous.  There  is  evidently 
no  effort  made  to  reproduce  a  single  fact  as  such 
and  for  its  own  sake.  They  spring  unbidden  to 
the  singer's  lips.  The  very  freedom  and  deftness  of 
manipulation,  a  touch  as  light  as  that  which  fell 
upon  the  harpstrings,  attest  the  currency  of  the 
narratives  and  a  common  acquaintance  of  the  people 
with  them. 

But  this  is  not  all.  TJie  Law  proper^  the  great  body 
of  legislation  to  be  found  in  the  Pentateuch^  still  more 
emphatically  thaji  the  history,  has  left  its  impression  on 
the  minds  of  IsraeVs  earliest  song-writers.  This  law  is 
cited  by  its  historic  title  in  the  very  opening  stanza 
of  the  Psalter  (i.  3;  cf.  Deut.  xi.  18-20;  xvii.  19;  Josh, 
i.  8,  and  Ps.  xl.  8,  9).  The  Deuteronomist's  striking 
phrase,  "sacrifices  of  righteousness,"  is  taken  bodily 
into  the  text  in  its  original  form  a  little  further  on 
(Ps.  iv.  6 ;  cf.  Deut.  xxxiii.  19).  The  fact  that  the 
orphaned  and  oppressed  are  the  special  wards  of  Jeho- 
vah, the  poet  reechoes  also  from  the  lawgiver's  lips 
(Ps.  x.  14,  18  ;  cf.  Deut.  x.  18  ;  xiv.  17  f.  etc.).^  The  pro- 
hibition of  the  codes  against  usury  and  the  taking  of 
bribes  he  not  only  seconds  but  adds  to  its  motives  the 
higher  inducement  that  only  thus  can  one  become  a 
friend  and  guest  of  God  (Ps.  xv.  4,  5  ;  cf.  Ex.  xxii.  24 ; 
xxiii.  8  ;    Lev.  xxv.  37  ;  Deut.  xxiii.  2  ff.).^ 

It  was  by  the  law  ("the  words  of  thy  lips,"  Ps.  xvii. 
4)  that  the  Psalmist  professes  to  have  been  kept  from 
the  oppressor's   paths.     In    that    law   there    had   been 

^  Psalm  X.  and  xxxiii.  are  the  only  properly  anonymous  ones  of  the  first  book.  The 
LXX.  have  joined  the  former  to  Psalm  ix.,  and  this  is  in  harmony  with  the  acrostic 
arrangement,  the  strophes  of  Psalm  x.  being  needful  to  complete  the  alphabet.  Hitzig, 
with  Delitzsch  and  others,  as  we  have  already  seen,  regarded  both  psalms  as  Davidic. 

-  Psalm  XV.  is  imputed  to  David  and  appears  to  have  been  composed  during  the  rebellion 
of  Absalom.  Verse  i  seems  to  presuppose  that  Mount  Zion  was  already  honored  with  the 
presence  of  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  (2  Sam.  vi.  17). 


The  Law  and  the  Psahns.  373 

left,  as  it  were,  the  Deity's  footprints  amongst  the 
ways  of  men.  In  following  them,  the  human  step,  too, 
might  be  unwavering  (vs.  5).  It  had  "judgments"  as 
well  as  "  statutes  "  (Ps.  xviii.  23  ;  cf.  Deut.  vi,  2  ;  vii.  1 1  ; 
viii.  11).  It  was  "Jehovah's  law"  (Ps.  xix.  8;  cf.  2 
Kings  xi.  12)  ;  no  mere  inward  voice,  but  a  summary 
of  testimonies,  precepts,  commandments  and  ordi- 
nances, in  the  keeping  of  which  there  was  great 
reward  (vs.  8-1 1).  When  he  says  (Ps.  xxvi.  6)}  "I  will 
wash  my  hands  in  innocence  ;  And  I  will  compass 
thine  altar,  O  Jehovah,"  the  Psalmist  has  undoubtedly 
in  view  the  priestly  calling  of  every  Israelite  and  sig- 
nalizes one  of  the  commonest  acts  of  such  a  calling  (cf. 
Ex.  xix.  6  ;  xxx.  20).  The  custom  of  sometimes  offering 
sacrifices  in  the  midst  of  trumpet-peals  has  left  its 
mark,  as  might  have  been  expected,  on  one  of  David's 
sweetest  songs  (Ps.  xxvii.  6  ;  cf.  Num.  x.  10).^  He  rec- 
ognizes it  as  a  behest  of  God  that  he  should  seek  his 
face  (vs.  8)  and  "  appear  "  before  him  (Ps.  xlii.  3  ;  cf. 
Ex.  xxiii.  17,  and  the  other  codes)  .^  With  a  freewill 
offering  he  would  come  and  with  sacrifices  (Ps.  liv.  8 ; 
cf.  Num.  XV.  3),*  fulfilling  from  day  to  day  his  vows 
(Ps.  Ixi.  9).^  Nothing,  indeed,  could  be  more  desirable, 
in  his  view,  than  the  lot  of  such  as  were  chosen  of  God 
to  dwell  in  his  house  and  to  be  filled  with  the  blessings 

'  Psalm  xxvi.  like  Psalinxv.  is  appropriate  to  the  period  of  Absalom's  rebellion  and  shows 
the  same  longing  for  the  sanctuary.  That  the  "  house  "  spoken  of  might  be  a  tent  is 
clear  from  Gen.  xxviii.  17;  Ex.  xxiii.  19;  xxviv.  26. 

-Psalm  xxvii.  is  ascribed  to  David,  and  the  "  house  of  Jehovah  "  is  still  nothing 
more  than  a  "  tent"  (vs.  4,  5). 

■i  Psalm  xlii.  is  a  "  maskil  "  of  the  "  sons  of  Korah."  It  is  the  first  psalm  of  the  second 
book.  The  Korahite  family  was  one  of  the  most  distinguished  of  the  Levitical  families  in 
the  time  of  D.^vid  (cf.  i  Chron.  xii.  6).  And  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  putting 
this  composition  much  after  his  day. 

■•  Psalm  liv.  is  Mavidic  in  style  and  teaching,  and  in  its  superscription  is  dated  at  the 
period  of  Saul's  persecutions. 

"  On  Psalm  Ixi.  Delitzsch  remarks:  "  Wir  bleiben  bei  dem  stolz  ignorirten  I'  Dhavidh 
und  h.-ibendafiir  cin  viel  schlichtercs  Vcrstandniss  dcs  Psalm  zum  I.ohne." —  Com.,  in  ioc 
It  seems  to  have  been  composed  on  the  occasion  of  the  flight  before  Absalom. 


374        '^^^^  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

thereof  (Ps.  Ixv.  ^)}  "  Let  me,"  he  exclaims,  in  strong 
hyperbole,  "abide  in  thy  tent  ages.  Let  me  hide  under 
the  cover  of  thy  wings."  As  one  of  the  elect  com- 
munity it  is  in  closest  harmony  and  sympathy  with  the 
Levitical  Torah  that  he  finds  himself  in  the  "courts  of 
the  Lord  "  (vs.  4).  He,  or  another  in  the  same  spirit, 
says : — 

"I  will  enter  thy  house  with  burnt-offerings, 
I  will  pay  to  thee  my  vows; 
Those  which  my  lips  have  offered. 
And  my  mouth  hath  spoken  in  my  distress. 
Burnt-offerings  of  fallings  I  will  bring  thee, 
With  the  incense  of  rams  ; 
I  will  offer  bullocks  with  goats"  (Ivi.  13  f.). 

This  Hebrew  poet,  now,  or  circle  of  poets,  of  the 
tenth  or  eleventh  century  b.c,  surely  betrays  no  igno- 
rance of  the  Mosaic  codes  or  the  innermost  core  and 
essence  of  them.  The  impression  they  have  left  upon 
him,  on  the  contrary,  is  fully  as  deep  as  the  sentiment 
that  Israel  had  a  God,  and  standing  as  a  people  in  the 
world.  On  the  supposition  that  the  Pentateuch  was 
virtually  complete  and  in  its  present  form  at  that  time, 
it  would  be  unfair  to  expect,  in  a  series  of  poems  from 
David,  or  from  contemporary  pens,  written  in  circum- 
stances in  which  these  must  have  been  written,  more 
numerous  or  more  specific  allusions  to  it  than  such  as 
we  have  found.^     Li  fact,   this  must   be  conceded  by 

1  Psalm  Ixv.,  although  containing  much  the  same  matter  and  having,  in  general,  the 
same  style  as  Psalms  viii.,  xix. ,  xxix.,  and  like  them  imputed  to  David  in  the  superscription, 
Delitzsch  thinks  cannot  be  so  early.  He  refers  in  disproof  to  the  fact  that  "  es  scheint  also 
Entlastung  Israel's  und  iiberhaupt  der  Volker  vom  Drucke  einer  Weltmacht  gemeint  zu 
sein."  Cf.  vs.  2,  7,  8.  That  is  not  so  certain,  however.  And  were  it  true,  it  need  not 
refer  to  the  empires  of  Babylon  or  Persia. 

2  Let  the  references  to  the  Pentateuch  in  the  first  thirty  chapters  of  Ecclesiasticus  or  the 
first  half  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom  be  compared  with  those  of  the  first  half  of  the  Psalter 
and  the  larger  number  will  be  found  in  the  earlier,  not  the  later,  work,  in  the  preexilian, 
not  the  post-exilian,  composition. 


The  Law  and  the  Psalms.  375 

critics  who,  while  insisting  that  the  bulk  of  the  Torah 
arose  after  the  seventh  century,  and  the  Levitical  code 
subsequent  to  the  exile,  equally  insist  that  the  bulk 
of  the  Psalter,  including  many  of  the  psalms  we 
have  been  considering,  is  also  post-exilian.  If  the 
compositions  we  have  passed  in  review  do  not  reflect 
the  Mosaic  period  and  a  Mosaic  Pentateuch,  much 
less  do  they  reflect  the  rabid  legalism  of  the  exulants 
from  Babylon.  They  do  reflect  a  Mosaic  Pentateuch. 
It  is  precisely  that  which  they  reflect.  They  do  mark 
the  earlier  and  not  the  later  stages  of  acquaintance 
with  it  and  ethical  appropriation  of  it ;  the  religion 
of  Israel  before  it  hardened  into  Judaism  ;  the  religion 
of  Jsrael  and  not  the  refinements  of  the  scribes. 
And  we  fail  to  see  how  our  critics  can  hope  for 
commensurate  returns  from  their  concerted  and 
determined  efforts  to  dislocate  the  so-called  "  Davidic 
psalms "  from  their  traditional  position  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. Summoned  to  bear  testimony  to  a  post-exilian 
Torah,  they  refuse  to  given  even  so  much  as  a  sign 
of  acquiescence.  If  allowed  to  speak  at  all, — and 
they  must  be  allowed  to  speak,  —  they  can  only 
utter  themselves  in  condemnation  of  such  an 
hypothesis. 

Nor  are  we  yet  done.  There  are  several  psalms, 
carrying  upon  them  every  mark  of  an  origin  in  the 
royal  period,  of  having  been  chanted,  if  any  were,  by 
David's  and  Solomon's  Levitical  choirs  in  the  original 
temple  at  Jerusalem,  that  have  also  so  clear  a  stamp 
of  dependence  on  the  Pentateuch  and  particularly  on 
the  priestly  institutions  of  Leviticus  as  to  deserve  a 
special  consideration. 

Take,  for  example.  Psalm  xvi.  It  is  confessed  by 
Hitzig  that  it    betrays    nothing   inconsistent   with   its 


3/6       TJie  Pentateuch:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

claim  to  Davidic  authorship.^  Its  allusion  to  idolatry 
can  be  considered  no  anachronism  at  that  time,  as 
some  maintain  (cf.  Judges  xviii.  17  f.;  i  Sam.  xix. 
13-16).  But  if  it  be  not  deeply  rooted  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, it  would  be  a  serious  problem  to  tell  whence 
its  singular  phraseology  really  comes. 

Its  author  distinguishes  between  drink-offerings 
properly  and  improperly  made  (vs.  4).  He  knows  that 
prohibition  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  forbidding  that 
the  names  of  idols  should  be  so  much  as  mentioned  by 
loyal  Israelites  {ibid.;  cf.  Ex.  xxiii.  13).  He  knows  the 
promise  that  was  made  to  the  tribe  of  Levi  that 
Jehovah  would  be  his  portion  (vs.  5  ;  cf.  Num.  xviii.  20 ; 
Deut.  x.  9 ;  xviii.  i,  2),  and  how  to  associate  with 
it  that  other  precious  memory  that  the  chosen 
people  were  to  be  a  peculiar  people,  a  kingdom 
of  priests  (Ex.  xix.  6).  He  says,  in  the  same  natural 
connection,  giving  a  tropical  force  to  the  fact  of  the 
partition  of  the  holy  land  among  the  tribes,  that  the 
"  lines  have  fallen  "  to  him  amid  pleasant  surroundings 
and  that  a  "goodly  heritage"  is  his  {ibid.;  cf.  Josh, 
xvii.  5  ;  Judges  xviii.  i).  And  he  calls  his  heart  his 
"glory,"  just  as  the  patriarch  Jacob  had  done  in 
blessing  his  sons  :  a  bit  of  philosophy  and  a  mark 
of  spiritual  attainment  withal  that  should  not  be 
overlooked  (Gen.  xlix.  6). 

Now,  if  the  Pentateuch  existed  at  the  time  David 
wrote  this  psalm,  so  many  direct  allusions  to  it  within 
the  space  of  less  than  half  a  dozen  verses,  allusions  to 
its  three  alleged  leading  portions,  to  its  characteristic 
codes,  in  fact  to  every  book  of  it,  are  easy  enough  to 
explain.      If  there  were  no  Pentateuch,  on  the  other 

1  He  remarks,  moreover:  "  Der  Psalm,  welchen  gedrungene  Kraft  der  Sprache,  v.  4, 
sowie  Frische  urid  Anschaulichkeit  des  bildlichen  Ausdruckes  kennzeichnen,  v.  4-6,  11, 
eignet  unzweifelhaft  dem  hohera  Alterthum." — Com.  (Leipz.  1863),  p.  79. 


The  Law  and  tJie  Psalms.  377 

hand,  no  written  law  and  no  trustworthy  history,  we 
are  simply  mystified  by  our  investigations,  not  at  all 
enlightened  and  edified. 

Psalm  xviii.  has  been  already  three  times  cited  in 
the  present  paper  (vs.  3,  17,  23),  Its  genuineness  is 
vindicated  by  the  historical  books,  where  it  also  appears 
in  a  somewhat  altered  form.^  It  contains,  however, 
unless  we  are  at  fault,  not  less  than  six  additional 
reminiscences  of  the  Pentateuch  within  the  space 
of  thirteen  stanzas  The  natural  phenomena  accom- 
panying the  deliverance  from  Egypt  and  the  giving  of 
the  Law  furnish  the  groundwork  of  the  thought  in  the 
seventh  and  following  verses.  The  winged  cherubim 
of  Jthe  tabernacle  also  receive  a  passing  notice  (vs.  10). 
The  words  hdel  and  qnr  which  it  employs  (vs.  31) 
are  both  antique  and  Mosaic  (cf.  Deut.  xxxii.  4).  The 
expression  "high-places"  (vs.  34)  comes  from  the 
"Song  of  Moses"  (Deut.  xxxii.  13);  and  the  bold 
announcement,  "  I  will  pursue  mine  enemies  and 
overtake  them,  I  will  turn  not  back  till  they  be 
consumed,"  from  the  song  of  the  triumphing  Israelites 
in  view  of  Pharaoh's  overthrow  (Ex.  xv.  9). 

Psalm  xxiv.  also  has  been  already  briefly  cited.  In 
its  opening  lines  (vs.  2),  as  in  Psalm  viii.,  the  primitive 
record  of  creation,  as  far  as  it  concerns  the  work  of  the 
second  day,  is  adapted  to  poetic  measure.  The  expres- 
sion "fulness  thereof"  as  related  to  the  earth  comes 
from  the  "Blessing  of  Moses"  (Deut.  x.xxiii.  16).  The 
third  commandment  reappears  in  the  fourth  verse.  In 
the  seventh  and  following  verses  the  language  pulsates 
vigorously  with  the  thought  that  Jehovah's  dwelling- 
place  is  with  the  historic  ark,  and  that  when  it  moves, 
he,  the  "  King  of  glory,"   also  moves,  as  the  Book  of 

*  "  Die  Davidiiche  Authentic  unci  so  weit  die  Aussage  der  Ueberschrift  in  Zwoifcl  zu 
Ziehen,  gebricht  es  an  jcdein  Grund."  —  Hitzig,  ibid.  p.  95. 


3/8       TJie  PentateucJt:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Numbers  had  represented  (ix. ;  x.  35  ;  cf.  2  Sam.  vii.  6). 
The  occasion  celebrated  seems  to  be  the  removal  of 
the  sanctuary  from  Kirjath-jearim  to  Mount  Zion. 
For  beauty  of  language  and  majesty  of  conception  the 
following  stanzas  can  scarcely  be  excelled  (vs.  9,  10)  : 

"  Lift  up,  O  gates,  your  heads! 
Lift  up  yourselves,  ye  ancient  doors, 
That  the  King  of  Glory  may  come  in! 
Who,  then,  is  the  King  of  Glory? 
Jehovah  of  Hosts  ; 
He  is  the  King  of  Glory." 

But  far  superior  to  any  others  in  their  bearing  on  the 
questions  of  Pentateuch  criticism  are  the  psalms  num- 
bered in  our  collection  xl.,  1.,  and  li.  (in  the  Septuagint 
xli.,  li.,  Hi.).  The  first  and  last  are  introduced  as  compo- 
sitions of  David,  the  third  as  that  of  Asaph,  who,  as  is 
well  known,  is  represented  as  a  poet,  musician,  and 
prophet  of  David's  time  (i  Chron.  xvi.  5  ;  2  Chron. 
xxix.  30 ;  Neh.  xii.  46). ^ 

The  superscription  to  Psalm  li.  tells  us  that  it  was 
written  by  David  after  Nathan's  rebuke  concerning  the 
matter  of  Bathsheba  (2  Sam.  xii.  i).  Nothing  could  be 
more  fitting  to  the  circumstances.  Already  in  previous 
utterances  of  his  there  has  appeared  evidence  that  all 
is  not  right  with  the  singer  (cf.  Ps.  vi.,  xxxviii.).  Here 
the  broken  spirit  casts  off,  as  it  were,  its  heavy  load, 
and  opens     itself   without    reserve   to   the    re-creating 

I  Ewald  and  Hitzig,  to  whom  Delitzsch  perhaps  in  this  case  may  be  joined,  are  inclined 
to  date  Psalm  xl.  at  the  time  of  Jeremiah,  if  not  to  make  him  its  author.  The  figure  of  the 
pit,  however  (vs.  3),  might  quite  as  well  have  been  taken  from  the  experience  of  Joseph. 
And  it  has  not  a  few  peculiarities  of  David's  style.  But  for  our  present  purpose,  the  date 
as  between  B.C.  1000  and  600  can  make  but  little  difference. 

Of  Psalm  1.  Delitzsch  says  that  it  is  "  ein  asafiche  Originalpsalm  ";  that  is,  it  is  not  to 
be  ascribed  to  some  later  member  of  the  family,  but  to  its  head.  The  only  objection  of 
weight  to  considering  the  title  of  Psalm  li.  genuine  is  the  allusion  in  verse  20  to  building 
the  walls  of  Jerusalem.  But  this  is  just  what  Solomon  is  said  to  have  done  (i  Kings  iii. 
i;  ix.  15;  cf.  Josh.  xix.  50;   2  Chron.  viii.  2). 


The  Law  and  the  Psalms.  379 

influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Better  might  the  Chris- 
tian heart  deny  itself  the  comfort  of  such  a  psalm  as 
the  twenty-third  than  part  with  this  deep-toned  miserere 
which  appeals  to  a  still  more  active  consciousness  and 
voices  a  sorer  need. 

Now,  however,  we  are  concerned  with  another  aspect 
of  it.  It  is  with  sin  and  moral  uncleanness  that  the 
sacrificial  Torah  is  supposed  to  have  particularly  to  do. 
Does  our  psalm  make  any  alhision  to  its  rites  ?  The 
writer  says  :  — 

"Purify  mei  with  hyssop  and  I  shall  be  clean, 
Wash  me  and  I  shall  be  whiter  than  snow." 

In  the  first  half  of  the  verse  there  is  undoubted 
reference  to  the  priestly  custom  of  sprinkling  lepers, 
and  others  ceremonially  unclean,  with  water  by  means 
of  a  branch  of  hyssop.^  In  the  second  half  of  the 
verse  a  no  less  characteristic  regulation  of  the  Levitical 
code  is  recalled  and  tacitly  approved  (Lev.  vi.  27 ;  xiii. 
54;  xvii.  16,  and  often). 

David  lays  hold  of  the  ancient  law  by  its  external 
features ;  but  it  is  clearly  the  kernel  of  it  that  he 
seeks.  "  Be  thou,  O  God ! "  he,  in  effect,  says,  "  my 
priest  without  intermediary.  Do  thou  for  me,  in 
reality,  that  which  no  son  of  Aaron  can  do  except  in 
form.  Their  poor  ministry  is  for  the  flesh.  With  me 
it  is  the  spirit  that  is  sick,  and  faint,  and  corrupt." 
David  looked  beyond  the  outward  ceremony  of  purifica- 
tion, and  his  prophetic,  though  troubled,  soul  —  made 
capable  of  the  prophetic  impulse,  we  might  almost  say, 
by  the  greatness  of  his  trouble  —  in  the  symbol  saw  the 
thing  symbolized.     And  it  is  from  the  same  illuminated 

»  Literally,  "  Un-sin  me." 

*  The  oriRinal  word  is  found  only  in  Ex.  xii    22;    Lev.  xiv.  4,  6.  49,  51,  52;    Nuin. 
xix.  6,  18;  I  Kings  v.  13. 


380        The  Pentateuch:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

plateau,  where  clearer  vision  and  a  deeper  experience 
have  come  to  him,  that  what  is  said  a  little  later  is 
uttered  (vs.   16,   17):  — 

*'  For  thou  delightest  not  in  sacrifice. 
Else  would  I  give  it ; 

In  offerings  made  by  fire  thou  hast  no  pleasure. 
The  sacrifices  of  God  are  a  broken  spirit , 
A  heart  broken  and  contrite,  O  God !  thou  wilt  not  despise." 

Disparaging  sacrifices  !  As  a  sufficient  means  of  puri- 
fication and  pardon,  as  the  final  and  only  ground  of  hope 
—  yes.  How  could  he  do  otherwise.''  The  man  who 
knows  what  it  is  to  be  a  sinner  against  God  (vs.  6)  does 
not  need  any  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  to  inform  him 
that  his  ultimate  appeal  must  be  to  God.  Dispar- 
aging sacrifices  !  As  an  eloquent  tribute  of  deepest 
human  feeling  and  longing,  whether  of  penitence  or  of 
gratitude  —  no.  It  is  clear  from  the  context,  as  well  as 
from  the  whole  teaching  of  Israelitish  history,  that  he 
does  not  and  can  not  disapprove  of  them  in  themselves 
considered.  His  very  allusion  to  them  attests  the 
commonness  of  their  use.  And  there  were  circum- 
stances, he  immediately  goes  on  to  say,  when  God 
could  "  delight  in  sacrifices,  in  burnt-offerings  and 
whole  burnt-offerings "  (vs.  20).^  It  was  when  his 
altars  really  smoked  for  him.  It  was  when  the  offering 
really  brought  together  the  offerer  and  Him  who  was 
offered  to  ;  when  it  had  ceased  to  be  a  barrier  and 
had  become  a  bond  and  channel  of  spiritual  communion. 
The  whole  spirit  of  the  Psalms  shows  that  this  is  the 
deeper  thought  which  underlies  the  figure  and  unites 

1  Even  if  the  unlikely  supposition  were  to  be  admitted  that  the  last  two  verses  of  the 
psalm  are  a  later  addition,  it  would  be  a  still  more  unlikely  supposition  that,  at  any 
period  within  which  their  origin  would  be  allowable,  they  could  have  been  added  as  a 
correction  of  King  David's  utterances.  They  must  have  been  appended,  if  it  all,  ta 
illustrate,  and  not  to  counterwork,  his  teaching  as  then  understood. 


TJic  Lazo  and  tJic  Psalms.  %Z\ 

In  one  the  otherwise  incoherent  utterances  of  the 
contrite  singer. 

Let  us  turn  now  to  the  fortieth  psahn.  As  we  read, 
we  can  scarcely  resist  the  feeling  that  it  is  a  kind  of 
response  to  the  one  we  have  just  reviewed  ;  the  praise- 
note,  as  it  were,  which  in  nearly  all  of  David's  composi- 
tions follows  words  of  confession  and  prayer.  God  had 
heard  his  cry  for  help.  He  had  lifted  him  out  of  the 
"miry  pit."  He  had  put  a  "new  song"  in  his  mouth. 
He  exclaims  :  — 

"  Oh,  the  blessedness  of  the  man 
Who  maketh  Jehovah  his  trust!" 

And  naturally,  then  (vs.  6),  he  recalls  the  wonders 
God  had  wrought  for  Israel ;  his  "thoughts  "  for  them, 
which  were  more  than  could  be  told.  But  it  is  the 
deeper  thought,  what  is  revealed  to  him  as  the  under, 
lying  purpose  of  all  Jehovah's  dealings  with  his  people, 
that  he  finally  fixes  upon. 

"  Sacrifice  and  oblation  thou  desirest  not ; 
Ears  hast  thou  hollowed  out  for  me. 

Burnt-offering  and  sin-offering  are  not  what  thou  requirest.^ 
Then  I  said :  '  Lo  !  I  come, 
In  the  roll  of  the  book  it  is  written  for  me ; 
To  do  thy  will,  O  my  God,  is  my  delight. 
And  thy  law  is  written  in  my  innermost  heart.'" 

*  The  pertinent  remarks  of  Professor  Green  {/Ifoscs  and  the  Prophets,  p.  no  f.)  may 
be  here  cited:  "  If  Ezekiel  is  the  inventor  of  sin-offerings  [as  Smend  and  onr  critics  gen- 
erally maintain],  Psalm  xl.  6  mnst  have  borrowed  them  from  him  or  from  the  Levitic.-il 
Law,  wh'ch  he  pioneered.  Such  language,  when  found  in  Micah  vi.  8,  Jer.  vii.  22,  is 
interpreted  [Prof.  R.  Smith,  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,  p.  288]  as  affirm- 
ing that '  Jehovah  has  not  enjoined  sacrifice,'  that  he  has,  in  fact,  given  no  law  upon  the 
subject;  the  Levitical  Law  was  consequently  luiknown.  But  if  Psalm  xl.  6  can  speak  thus 
after  Ezekiel's  I^aw,  or  the  Levitical  Law,  had  been  announced,  Micah  and  Jeremiah  could 
do  the  same;  and  then,  for  all  that  appears,  the  Levitical  Law  may  antedate  their  utter- 
ances. Or  if  Psalm  xl.  was  prior  to  the  time  of  Ezekiel,  the  sin-offering  was  not 
introduced  by  him;  though  not  mentioned  elsewhere,  it  was  part  of  the  preexilic  ritua/ 
and  Moses  may  have  ordained  it  after  all." 


382       The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origm  and  Structure . 

It  is  precisely  the  spirit  that  ruled  in  the  psalm  of 
penitence  just  considered  that  rules  in  these  utterances 
of  victorious  confidence  and  rejoicing.  The  writer 
recognizes  that  what  God  most  wanted  on  the  part  of 
his  people  was  open  ears  and  an  obedient  will.  The 
Law  he  had  given  them^  would  otherwise  fail  of  its 
purpose.  What  mattered  it,  that  it  was  written  in  a 
book,  if  the  heart  did  not  honor  and  delight  in  it  ? 
What  mattered  a  ritual  of  sacrifice  if  there  were  not  to 
be  also  a  spirit  of  self-surrender,  symbolized  and  set 
forth  by  the  outward  offerings.  "  Hence,"  says  the 
Psalmist,  "  I  come  with  the  book  written  for  me  ;  but 
not  with  the  book  alone  ;  I  come  with  that  which  will 
please  thee  better :  a  heart  to  interpret  the  book  and 
a  will  to  keep  it." 

Does  such  language  surprise  us  on  David's  lips  }  It 
ought  not.  It  is  true  that  we  find  the  prophets  of  the 
sixth  century  looking  forward  to  just  such  an  inward 
reception  of  the  Law  and  response  to  it  as  one  of  the 
blessings  of  the  better  days  to  come  (Jer.  xxxi.  32). 
But  it  had  also  been  the  demand  of  every  great  leader 
of  Israel  from  Moses  down  (Deut.  xxx.  6,  16;  Prov.  xxi. 
3  ;  Hos.  vi.  6;  Mic.  vi.  6-8;  Is.  i.  ir-15).  It  was  simply 
putting  in  another  form  a  sentiment  that  David  might 
have  heard  many  a  time  from  the  lips  of  his  own  revered 
teacher  and  friend  ;  one,  in  fact,  he  could  not  well  have 
failed  to  hear,  since  it  was  the  reverse  of  that  which 
had  characterized  the  fatal  policy  of  his  predecessor, 
whose  condemnation  had  been  spoken  in  the  never-to- 
be-forgotten  words  :  "  Behold,  to  obey  is  better  than 
sacrifice,  and  to  hearken  than  the  fat  of  rams  "  (i  Sam. 

^  It  was  a  law  that,  obviously,  had  to  do  with  sacrifice  and  oblation,  with  burnt-offering 
ai»d  sin-offering;  else  why  does  he  mention  them  at  all  in  this  connection? 

2  "  Die  Aussage  Davids  ist  der  Widerhall  dieser  Aussage  Samuels  mit  welcher  dem 
Konigtum  Sauls  das  Todesurtheil  gesprochen  und  also  dem  kiinftigen  Konigtum  Davids 
der  Weg  gottgefalligen  Bestandes  vorgezeichnet  ward."  —  Delitzsch,  Com.,  in  loco. 


TJie  Law  a?id  the  Psalms.  383 

XV.  22).2  To  deny,  on  the  other  hand,  David's  author- 
ship of  this  psalm  and  to  transfer  it  to  the  time 
of  Jeremiah,  or  even  later,  does  not  help  the  matter 
for  our  critics.  It  is  not  a  voice  that  witnesses 
to  God's  invariable  attitude  toward  animal  sacrifices. 
It  is,  as  we  have  said,  a  chorus  of  voices  whose 
sound  cannot  be  escaped  within  the  confines  of 
Hebrew  history. 

Nowhere,  however,  is  the  sentiment  tliat  animal 
sacrifices  were  never  intended  to  serve  as  a  commuta- 
tion for  that  which  is  due  from  man  to  God  and  to  his 
fellow-man  more  earnestly  set  forth  than  in  Psalm  1. 
The  repudiation  and  rebuke  here  of  a  doctrine  so  gross 
borders  even  on  contempt.  And  it  is  instructive  to 
find  that  the  man  from  whose  mouth  we  hear  such 
language,  in  this  instance,  is  himself  a  Levite.  As  in 
the  case  of  Jeremiah,  whose  priestly  office  did  not 
prevent  his  putting  obedience  before  outward  rites 
(vii.  21  f.),  so  Asaph  is  enough  of  a  Levite  at  heart  to 
see  what  was  the  inner  meaning  of  the  code  he  served. 

The  psalm  opens  with  a  summons  from  God  to  "  his 
people  "  to  meet  him  in  solemn  conference.  They  are 
his  "favored  ones";  the  same  who  had  made^  a  cove- 
nant with  him  by  sacrifice.  Mark  the  significant 
words.  They  are  in  tender  allusion  and  clearly,  too, 
an  approving  one  to  what  had  occurred  at  Sinai  when 
the  law  was  given  (Ex.  xxiv.  5-8).  Does  he  then  forth- 
with proceed  to  disallow  and  denounce  the  offering 
of  sacrifices  ?  He  denounces  their  counterfeit ;  the 
degeneracy  and  coarseness  that  can  imagine  him 
pleased  with  offerings  that  bear  upward  no  incense  of 
real  devotion.     This  is  the  impeachment  he  brings  :  — 

'  The  use  of  the  participle  indicates  the  continuance  of  the  act  of  making  a  coven  int. 
It  had  not  been  d jne  oiice  for  all,  but  was  an  ever-present  condition  of  the  divine  relatiou- 
ship  to  his  people. 


384       The  Pentatettch  :  Its  Origin  and  Stmcture. 

"  Hear,  O  my  people,  and  I  will  speak; 

0  Israel,  I  will  testify  against  thee  — 
I,  that  am  God,  thine  own  God ! 

Not  for  [the  lack  of]  thy  sacrifices  do  I  reprove  thee ; 
For  thy  burnt-offerings  are  ever  before  me. 

1  need  not  to  take  bullocks  out  of  thy  house, 
Nor  he-goats  out  of  thy  folds ; 

For  mine  is  every  beast  of  the  forest, 

And  the  cattle  upon  a  thousand  hills. 

I  know  every  bird  of  the  mountains, 

And  the  abundance  [brood]  of  the  meadows  is  with  me. 

Were  I  hungry,  I  would  not  tell  thee, 

For  mine  is  the  world  and  its  fulness. 

Do  I  eat  the  flesh  of  bullocks. 

Or  do  I  drink  the  blood  of  goats  ? 

Rather  sacrifice  unto  God  thanksgiving, 

And  pay  thy  vows  unto  the  Most  High. 

Then  call  on  me  in  the  day  of  trouble  ; 

I  will  deliver  thee,  as  one  honoring  me. 

But  to  the  wicked,  God  saith  : 

What  is  it  to  thee,  to  speak  of  my  statutes, 

And  to  take  my  covenant  in  thy  mouth  ?  " 

Can  there  justly  be  any  misunderstanding  of  these 
pathetic  and  earnest  v^ords .''  They  are  simply  the 
interpretation  and  application  from  the  Hebrew  national 
and  historical  point  of  view  of  the  sacrificial  Torah.  It 
had  become  to  many  a  law  of  license  and  a  cloak  of 
wickedness.  Evil  men  mouthed  Jehovah's  "  statutes  " 
and  "  covenant,"  but  inwardly  hated  both  and  secretly 
cast  his  words  behind  their  backs.  It  was  in  this  way, 
at  least,  that  the  son  of  Sirach  understood  and  inter- 
preted the  sentiments  of  our  psalm.  Writing  in  the 
midst  of  the  ever-narrowing  regulations  of  post-exilian 
Judaism,  he  was  in  no  danger,  surely,  of  depreciating 
unduly  the  outward  rite.  Paraphrasing  at  length  the 
thoughts  of  our  auther,  he  does  not  hesitate  to  follow 
his  copy  in  its  warmest  denunciations  of  hypocritical 


The  Lazv  and  the  Psalms.  385 

ecclesiasticism.^  Indeed,  what  more  absurd  hypothesis 
could  well  have  been  conceived  than  this,  that  among 
the  Israelites  all  ordinary  laws  of  growth  were  reversed 
and  the  ethical  idea  of  sacrifices,  as  a  natiwal  product, 
preceded  and  ushered  in  the  custom  of  sacrificing,  that 
that  was  not  first  which  was  natural  but  that  which  was 
spiritual  ?  This  is  what  the  advocates  of  a  purely 
natural  development  in  the  institutions  of  Israel  soberly 
ask  us,  in  opposition  to  every  known  principle  of 
development,  to  believe. 

On  the  contrary,  the  poets  and  prophets  of  Israel 
have  done  just  the  work  that  was  to  have  been  expected 
of  them.  They  have  emphasized  the  symbolical  sig- 
nificance of  the  Law  over  against  its  ceremonial  features, 
and  rather  than  the  ceremonial.  With  them  these 
legal  regulations  are  less  a  matter  of  objective  contem- 
plation and  study,  and  more  a  motive.  They  are 
impressed  with  the  fact  that  the  best  Israelite,  after  all, 
is  he  who  is  one  inwardly.  And  this  is  as  consonant 
with  the  nature  of  the  literature  they  represent  as  it  is 
with  the  advanced  stage  they  occupy  in  the  development 
of  revelation.  Without  introducing  anything  actually 
new,  they  mark  a  successful  effort  toward  a  better 
adjustment  of  the  old.  Forms  of  worship  begin  more 
and  more,  thanks  largely  to  them,  to  pulsate  with  the 
spirit  of  worship.  The  general  is  more  and  more 
translated  into  the  special  and  individual.  "  Bless  ye 
the  Lord,  O  house  of  Israel  "  comes  to  take  on,  even 
for  the  "house  of  Israel,"  the  more  significant  and  more 
Christian  form  :  "  Bless  the  Lord,  O  my  soul  "  ! 

'  "Sacrificing  wh.it  is  wrongfully  gotten  is  an  offering  of  mockery, 

And  the  mocUeries  of  transgressors  arc  not  accepted." 
"  He  that  washeth  himself  because  of  a  dead  body,  if  he  touch  it  again. 

What  availelh  his  washing?"  —  Ecclus.  x.vxiv.  i8,  25. 
"  He  that  rcquiteth  a  good  turn  offereth  fine  flour; 

And  he  that  giveth  alms  sacrificcth  praise."  —  Ibid.  xxxv.  i. 


386       TJie  Pentateuch:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

But  it  is  time  to  direct  attention,  briefly,  to  another 
particular  in  which  the  earliest  portions  of  the  Psalter 
bear  witness  to  the  essential  integrity  of  the  Pentateuch 
in  their  day.  We  find  them  not  only  penetrated  in 
general  with  the  same  ethical  spirit ;  but  they  are 
stamped  zvith  the  tnost  fundamental  and  characteristic 
principles  of  the  Israelitish  religion  as  there  formally  set 
forth.     Let  us  illustrate  by  some  examples. 

One  of  these  principles,  common  as  we  have  already 
elsewhere  shown  to  every  part  of  the  legislation,  is  the 
demand  for  a  single  national  sanctuary.  To  what 
extent  it  remained  an  ideal  most  imperfectly  attained 
in  the  earlier  Jewish  history,  our  examination  of  the 
historical  books  has  demonstrated.  Still,  an  ideal  it 
always  was,  earnestly  striven  for  by  such  as  were 
capable  of  being  much  moved  by  ideals.  The  triumph 
of  the  national  spirit  in  David's  time  and  the  centrali- 
zation of  power  in  him  gave  an  opportunity  for  a 
corresponding  centralization  in  the  national  worship 
never  before  enjoyed.  He  makes  no  law  on  the  sub- 
ject, it  is  to  be  carefully  noted.  He  acts,  in  every 
respect,  as  though  it  were  a  matter  of  course ;  that  is, 
as  though  there  had  always  been  a  Law  and  that,  now. 
Providence  had  given  a  clear  field  for  its  execution. 
At  the  earliest  opportunity  he  brings  the  Ark  of  the 
Covenant  to  Mount  Zion.  Thither  the  tribes  were 
to  go  \v^  (Ps.  cxxii.  5)  :  — 

"The  tribes  of  Jehovah  —  it  was  a  precept  in  Israel  — 
To  give  thanks  to  the  name  of  Jehovah." 

Such  a  tacit  assumption  on  the  king's  part  and  the 
universal,  unresisting  assent  of  the  tribes  at  the  start 
are  witnesses,  that  must  not  be  overlooked,  to  what  all 


The  Law  and  the  Psalms.  387 

along  had  been  the  national  goal.     And    the    Psalms 
throughout  reflect  this  spirit. 

The  abode  of  Jehovah  is  looked  upon  as  the  so-called 
"holy  hill,"  that  is,  Zion  (iii.  4).  He  had  chosen  it  for 
a  habitation  and  there  he  would  dwell  forever.  The 
mountains  of  Bashan  vainly  sought  to  rival  it  in  his 
esteem  (Ixviii.  15,  17).  On  Zion  he  was  enthroned 
(ix.  12;  Ixv.  2).  His  dwelling-place,  as  of  old,  was  the 
humble  tabernacle  which  was  there  pitched  (v.  5  ; 
X.  I,  4;  XV.  i;  xviii.  6;  Ixi.  5).  From  Zion  went 
forth  the  salvation  of  Israel  (xiv.  7)  :  Zion,  on  the 
extreme  north,  a  joy  of  the  whole  earth  (xlviii.  3  ;  1.  2). 
There  praise  waited  for  Jehovah  and  amid  its  stillness 
ascended  the  thankful  song  (Ixv.  2). 

These  are  simple  illustrations  of  the  many  echoes  in 
the  oldest  parts  of  the  Psalter  to  this  clear  teaching  of 
the  Pentateuch.  And  the  surprising  thing  about  it  is 
that  the  Psalms  echo  no  other  sentiment  whatever. 
One  may  be  safely  challenged  to  discover  a  single 
exception  to  the  rule.  Not  only  surprising,  but  inex- 
plicable, would  be  the  circumstance,  if  the  Hebrew 
religion  were  understood  to  be  still  in  a  chrysalis  state, 
if  this  sentiment  first  took  palpable  shape  and  began 
really  to  be  insisted  on  four  centuries  later,  during  the 
reforms  of  King  Josiah. 

Again,  we  discover  just  as  little  trace  of  uncertainty 
in  our  collection  of  early  psalms,  in  their  representa- 
tions of  God.  It  is  certain  that  they  never  recognize 
more  than  one  God,  the  Jehovah-Elohim  of  the  Penta- 
teuch and  the  prophets.  Heathen  deities  are,  indeed, 
alluded  to  ;  but  so  far  from  being  put  on  a  level  with 
Jehovah,  or  regarded  as,  in  any  sense,  his  rivals,  there 
is  rather  a  refusal  to  acknowledge  them  as  gods  at  all 
(xvi,  4 ;  xcvii.  7).     The  bulk  of  the  Psalter  is  taken  up 


388       TJie  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

with  the  direct  worship  of  Jehovah,  with  grateful 
and  tender  words  of  adoration  and  praise  exclusively 
for  him. 

If  we  were  to  trust  the  representations  of  our  critics 
it  was  a  very  different  state  of  things  that  actually 
existed  for  centuries  after  David  lived.  Until  the 
prophets,  one  by  one,  and  sporadically,  began  to  intro- 
duce a  more  exclusive  spirit,  the  religion  of  Israel,  it  is 
said,  was  practically  syncretistic.  Israel  had,  nom- 
inally, a  national  deity,  as  other  nations  about  it,  and 
his  name  was  "Jehovah,"  But  the  practice  of  the 
notorious  Jeroboam  I.  and  the  still  more  notorious 
Jeroboam  II.  best  illustrates  the  actual  faith  of 
the  people.  Their  worship  was  a  compromise  ;  their 
religion  made  up  of  a  fusion  of  elements  in  which 
a  great  deal  of  pure  heathenism  was  mingled  with 
a  modicum  of  what  is  now  known  as  Judaism.  And 
such  a  course,  it  is  declared,  was  then,  in  that  stage  of 
development,  inevitable  and  legitimate.  The  acknowl- 
edged best  men  of  the  times,  iconoclasts  like  Elijah, 
took  no  exception  to  matters  that,  in  a  later  day,  were 
branded  as  idolatrous  and  criminal. 

It  has  already  been  shown  what  violence  is  done  by 
such  a  theory  to  the  facts  of  Israelitish  history  as 
recorded  by  Israelitish  historians  and  to  the  real  con- 
sensus of  prophetical  opinion  and  teaching.  It  is  even 
more  at  war  with  the  Psalms.  In  what  one  of  them  is 
there  to  be  detected  so  much  at  a  glance  of  favor 
toward  Moloch  or  Chemosh,  Baal  or  Ashtoreth } 
Where  is  the  scintilla  of  evidence  to  be  found  in  any 
verse  of  these  one  hundred  and  fifty  separate  composi- 
tions, running  through  a  period  of  at  least  six  hundred 
years,  that  Jehovah  was  looked  upon  as  merely  the 
God  of    Israel  ?     It  is  an  alleged  David,  rather,  who 


TJie  Lazv  and  the  Psalms.  389 

speaks  for  all  Hebrew  singers  when  he  says,  in  tender 
invocation  to  Jehovah  (xvi.  2-4)  :  "  Thou  art  my 
Lord :  I  have  no  good  beyond  thee ; "  and  adds : 
"Their  griefs  shall  be  multiplied  who  wed  with  other 
gods  [  ?  exchange  God  for  an  idol]  :  — 

"  I  pour  not  out  their  drink-offerings  of  blood, 
Nor  take  their  names  upon  my  lips." 

It  is  the  same  representative  David,  we  are  informed, 
who  elsewhere  utters  himself  quite  to  the  same  intent  : 

"  None  is  like  thee  among  the  gods,  O  Lord  ! 
Neither  are  there  any  works  to  be  compared  with  thine. 
All  the  nations  whom  thou  hast  made, 
Shall  come,  O  Lord  !  and  worship  before  thee. 
And  they  shall  give  glory  to  thy  name, 
For  thou  art  great  and  doest  wonders  ; 
Thou  art  God  alone  "  (Ixxxvi.  8-1 1). 

The  ideas  concerning  God  and  the  epithets  applied 
to  him  in  the  Psalms,  so  far  from  being  Canaanitish  or 
syncretistic,  are,  in  fact,  more  nearly  Christian  in  their 
depth  and  definiteness  of  conception.  Without  fear  of 
vagueness  we  still  accept  them  as  expressing  our  own 
supposed  more  philosophic  notions.  Is  it,  for  example, 
his  relations  to  the  material  universe  that  we  would 
characterize  as  being  above  it  and  the  author  of  it  ? 
How  compactly  and  how  eloquently  it  is  set  forth  in 
the  couplet  (xxxiii.  9)  :  — 

"  For  he  spoke  and  it  was  done ; 

He  commanded  and  it  stood  fast " ! 

Is  it  his  own  self-existence  and  eternity  .-•  In  one  of 
the  oldest  compositions  of  the  collection,  one,  indeed, 
ascribed  to  the  lawgiver  of  the  wilderness  himself,^  we 

'  Psalm  xc.  2.  "  F,s  gicbt  knuni  cin  Schiiftdcnkmal  t\c9,  Altertiims,  welches  das 
Uebcrlicferungszeugniss  seiner  Alstammung  so  glanzenj  rechtfertigt,  wie  dicser  Psalm." 
^Pelitzsch,  Com.,  in  loco. 


390       The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

find  this  most  impressive  reflection  of  the  mystery : 
"  Before  the  mountains  were  brought  forth  or  ever  thou 
didst  give  birth  to  the  earth  and  the  world,  From  aeon 
to  aeon  thou  art  God."  They  recognize  and  character- 
ize, as  do  no  other  compositions  of  antiquity  outside  the 
Scriptures,  the  divine  omniscience  and  omnipresence 
{ibid,  cxxxix.),  and,  above  all,  the  divine  holiness  that 
can  suffer  nothing  unclean,  insincere,  or  inwardly 
untrue  in  its  sight  (xxii.  4 ;  xxiv.  3  f.  ;  Ixxi.  22).  They 
find  in  God  that  which  it  has  always  been  so  hard 
for  the  natural  man  to  think  of  as  possible  attributes 
of  the  same  great  being :  an  harmonious  blending 
of  matchless  power  with  a  mercy  and  condescension 
equally  matchless:  — 

"One  thing  has  God  spoken;  these  two  have  I  heard: 
That  power  belongeth  unto  God ; 
And  that  to  thee,  O  Lord,  belongeth  loving-kindness"  (Ixii.  12). 

So,  too,  in  the  form  of  the  worship  paid  to  Jehovah 
we  discover  that  the  Israelitish  psalmody  is  entirely 
consistent  with  the  presuppositions  of  Israelitish 
history.  It  is  never  presented  to  us  as  a  worship  at 
second-hand,  but  direct  and  personal.  It  is  never  set 
forth  as  a  worship  through  symbols  and  outward  repre- 
sentations of  the  Deity,  but  a  worship  of  One  who  is 
supposed  to  know  every  secret  of  the  heart  (i  Sam. 
xvi.  7  ;  Ps.  vii.  10,  etc.).  There  is,  in  short,  just  as 
little  a  breach  of  the  second  commandment  observable 
in  the  form  and  spirit  of  the  Psalms  as  of  the  first 
commandment. 

What  has  been  already  said  of  Zion  as  the  recognized 
seat  of  the  Jehovah  cultus  cannot  be  harmonized  with 
the  hypothesis  of  a  recognized  adoration  of  images  there 
or  elsewhere.     We  hear  of  the  "holy  hill,"  the  "taber- 


The  Latv  and  the  Psalms.  391 

nacle,"  the  "sanctuary,"  the  "throne  of  Jehovah  "  ;  but 
we  hear  of  no  orderly  worship  save  of  him  who  dwelt 
between  the  cherubim,  nothing  whatever  in  approval  of 
the  bamoth  and  their  ceremonies  ;  nothing  in  honor  of 
the  star-images  of  Amos's  memories  (v^  26),  or  of  the 
molten  calf  of  Hosea's  denunciations  (viii.  5)  ;  or  the 
"asherahs"  of  Deuteronomy.  It  is  noted  and  enjoined 
that  men  appear  before  Jehovah  in  "  holy  attire " 
(xxix.  21);  but  that  any  admiration  is  expended  on  the 
probably  quite  as  sumptuous  pagan  rites  we  have  no 
hint.  Now  the  psalmists  cannot  have  been  ignorant  of 
that  which,  if  the  records  are  true,  the  ordinary  Israelite 
knew  so  much.  They  cannot  have  approved  of  that 
concerning  which  they  are  so  significantly,  and  as 
we  believe  purposely,  silent.  We  fail  to  see  good 
reason  why  other  places  and  forms  of  worship  than 
those  of  Zion  find  no  reflection  in  the  Hebrew 
Psalter,  if  they  were  ever,  as  is  alleged,  as  legitimate 
and  fully  sanctioned  as  those  of  Zion  within  the 
periods  covered  by  our  psalms.  Here,  too,  there  is 
an  argumentum  e  silentio  worthy  of  the  consideration 
of  our  critics  who  build  so  massively  upon  it 
elsewhere. 

Not  only  is  there  no  outspoken  approval,  nor  even  so 
much  as  a  hint  of  acquiescence,  there  are  positive  utter- 
ances of  disapproval  of  any  such  efforts  at  a  dualistic 
service  (xxxi.  7;  xliv.  21  f.).  There  is  an  all-pervading 
spirit  that  speaks  louder  than  words,  an  attitude  toward 
Jehovah  and  his  service  that  precludes  the  opposite, 
points  to  a  contrast  in  fact  as  well  as  in  act.  It  is  the 
taunt  of  the  other  sort  of  people,  for  example,  the  men 
who  walk  by  sight,  that  seems  to  reach  us  in  the  heart- 
less interrogatory  (xlii.  4,  11):  "Where  is  thy  God.?" 
It  is  the  men  who  bow  at  other  and  prohibited  altars 


392        TJie  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

who  shoot  out  the  lip  and  wag  the  head,  saying  m  mien 
as  well  as  in  words  (Ps  xxii.  8,  9)  :  — 

"He  trusted  in  Jehovah,  let  him  release  him; 
Let  him  rescue  him,  for  he  delighteth  in  him." 

It  could  not  have  been  they  who  made  a  fetish  of  the 
sun  or  the  moon,  who  were  wont  to  utter  themselves  so 
humbly  and  yet  so  profoundly  in  the  language  of  their 
inspired  singer :  — 

"When  I  see  thy  heavens, 
The  work  of  thy  fingers  ; 
The  moon  and  the  stars. 
Which  thou  didst  create ; 
What  is  a  mortal  man 
That  thou  bearest  him  in  mind?" 

It  could  not  have  been  the  loyal  Israelites,  of  whom 
David  says  (Ps.  xvi.  3)  that  they  are  the  "  noble  of  the 
earth,"  in  whom  is  all  his  delight,  who  bowed  down  to 
images  of  stupid  oxen,  trying  to  persuade  themselves 
that  somehow  Jehovah  dwelt  in  them  and  would  mani- 
fest himself  through  them.  It  was  the  loyal  Israel 
rather,  those  who  were  in  sympathy  with  David  and 
joined  David  in  those  words,  scarce  comprehensible 
indeed,  but  elevating  and  sweet,  and  a  sure  antidote 
one  might  think  against  the  seductions  whether  of 
the  Egyptian  apis  or  the  gilded  calf  of  Samaria 
(Ps.  viii.  6  f.)  :  — 

"Thou  hast  made  him  little  less  than  God, 
And  with  glory  and  honor  thou  hast  crowned  him ! 
Thou  gavest  him  rule  over  the  works  of  thy  hands; 
Thou  hast  placed  them  all  under  his  feet. 
Sheep  and  oxen,  under  liim  are  they  all ; 
And  alike,  the  beasts  of  the  field, 
The  birds  of  the  air  and  the  fish  of  the  sea." 


The  Laiv  and  the  Psalms.  393 

And  there  is  another  hypothesis  of  our  critics  in 
which,  whatever  may  be  their  conclusions  from  the  other 
Scriptures,  they  cannot  have  fully  reckoned  with  the 
Psalms.  It  is  that  the  prophets  of  the  royal  and  subse- 
quent periods  were  far  from  being  in  harmony  with  one 
another  or  with  the  people  to  whom  they  brought  their 
messages ;  that,  above  all,  the  prophet  was  at  war  with 
the  priest,  jealous  of  his  influence  and  contesting  step 
by  step  his  innovations  and  growing  usurpations.  Of 
all  this,  there  is  not  one  trace  in  the  psalms  of  David 
and  his  successors.  Not  one  inharmonious  note  do  we 
here  discover,  not  one  element  of  discord.  The  singer 
"Asaph"  was  known  not  only  as  Levite,  but  also  as 
prophet.  The  sons  of  Korah,  recognized  as  Levites  of 
the  Levites,  are  recognized  in  their  productions  as  first 
of  all  Israelites.  Their  songs  are  strikingly  national  in 
tone.  They  honor  tlie  sanctuary  but  in  no  spirit  of 
ecclesiasticism.  Both,  like  Ethan,  are  significantly 
introduced  as  David's  singers.  They  sing  in  his  meas- 
ures. They  reflect  his  spirit.  They  teach  his  doctrine. 
To  find  any  marked  cleavage-lines  dividing  these 
compositions  such  as  is  supposed  to  exist  in  the  law  ; 
to  find  opposing  tendencies  and  dissentient  opinions  on 
such  matters  as  the  cultus,  the  history,  the  moral  and 
political  outlook,  the  dangers,  the  goal  of  Israel,  we 
will  venture  to  say  is  impossible.  Priestly,  kingly,  and 
prophetical  elements  are  found  mingling  in  every  part 
and  blending  without  disharmony.  It  is  "Asaph," 
perhaps,  who  makes  most  of  God  as  Judge.  It  is  the 
"sons  of  Korah"  who  chiefly  exalt  him  as  King.  It  is 
David  who  strikes  every  cord  in  the  gamut  and  in  an 
ethical  and  doctrinal,  as  well  as  an  historical,  sense  is, 
above  all  others,  the  "  sweet  psalmist  of  Israel." 

It    might  be  said  now  that,  as  in  the  case   of    the 


394        T^^^^  PentateiicJi  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

historical  books,  so  here  in  the  Psalms,  we  are  to 
consider  that  we  have  a  carefully  edited  edition  of 
these  works  which  needs  as  careful  a  sifting  of  original 
from  secondary  and  foreign  material.  But  the  project 
of  an  expurgated  edition  of  the  Psalter,  we  venture  to 
say,  might  as  well  be  given  up,  if  it  be  entertained  on 
the  principles  we  have  been  considering.  To  expur- 
gate the  Psalter  of  all  testimony  hostile  to  the  Well- 
hausen  theory  of  Israelitish  history,  or  out  of  harmony 
with  it,  would  be  to  expunge  the  Psalter,  at  least  its 
acknowledged  earlier  portions.  It  would  be,  by  some 
means,  to  rid  ourselves  altogether  of  a  psalmist  David, 
to  level  Zion,  and  silence  the  witnesses  to  a  pure 
worship  of  Jehovah  in  this  period  of  the  united 
kingdom.  That,  indeed,  is  what  is  aimed  at,  virtually 
if  not  directly,  in  the  efforts  now  making  to  move  the 
collection  from  its  historic  base  and  set  it  bodily  down 
in  the  morass  of  the  exile. 

Or  it  might  be  said  that  we  have  not  in  our  present 
Psalter  the  actual  songs  of  the  people,  but  only  of  those 
who  frequented  the  sanctuary  at  Jerusalem  ;  and  that 
this  collection  does  not  fairly  represent  the  habitual 
practices  and  spiritual  attainments  of  even  that  part  of 
Israel  whose  centre  of  worship  was  Solomon's  temple. 
Very  true  ;  it  is  freely  admitted  that  it  is  quite  unlikely 
that  it  does  fairly  represent  them,  generally,  in  these 
respects.  When  did  a  hymnbook  ever  represent  the 
habitual  practices,  or  even  the  spiritual  attainments,  of 
any  people  .-*  The  hymnbook  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
of  Germany  is  far  enough  from  representing  German 
Lutheranism  as  it  appears  in  the  daily  lives,  or  even  in 
the  current  beliefs,  of  many  of  its  members.  The  spirit 
of  Wesley's  hymns,  in  all  charity  we  may  say  it,  was 
never  the  spirit  to  which  Wesley's  followers  would  lay 


TJie  Law  and  the  Psalms.  395 

claim  as  having  either  fully  or  widely  attained  it.  The 
hymnbook  records  the  aspirations,  the  hopes,  the  sup- 
plications, the  confessions,  the  longings,  the  victories 
of  the  church  in  its  best  state.  It  is  always  something 
to  be  accounted  for,  however.  It  is  itself  an  effect  and 
not  simply  a  cause.  Of  what  was  the  Israelitish  hymn- 
book  an  effect .?  Something  went  before  Luther's 
hymns  that  made  them  possible.  What  went  before 
David's  .''  It  makes  no  difference  whether  the  composi- 
tions we  have  been  considering  were  in  the  mouths 
of  few  or  many ;  whether  they  were  sung  in  Samaria 
or  only  in  Jerusalem ;  in  the  homes  of  the  people  or 
only  at  the  temple.  They  presuppose  something  of 
which  they  are  the  outgrowth. 

If  the  Pentateuch  previously  existed  in  essentially  its 
present  form ;  if  its  laws  were  to  a  considerable  extent 
known  to  the  people  and  had  been  somewhat,  though 
to  a  much  less  extent,  observed  by  them  ;  if  Israelitish 
history  had  actually  taken  the  course  that  is  recorded 
in  the  historical  books,  we  have  a  sufficient  historical 
and  ethical  basis  for  the  Psalter.  We  know  whence 
these  poems  derive  their  present  form  and  peculiar 
methods  of  expression  ;  we  know  from  what  grand  and 
all-sufficient  source  under  God  they  receive  their  inspira- 
tion and  motive  power.  We  can  see  how  well  adapted 
they  were  to  worshipers  of  those  times,  how  they 
stimulated  the  conscience,  inspired  the  zeal,  and  melted 
the  heart,  just  as  our  best  hymns  do  ours.  But  without 
the  Pentateuch  and  the  illumined  history,  a  Saul  before 
David,  and  a  full-sized  Moses  before  the  noble  Samuel, 
we  have  a  stream  without  a  fountain,  we  have  some  of 
the  ripest  fruits  of  biblical  training  without  the  trace 
of  anything  that  could    properly  be  called  a  Bible. 

Finally,  I   wcnikl  direct   attention  to  what  might  be 


39^        The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

called  the  personal  element  in   the    Psalms  :  in    other 
words,  to  what  the  psalmists  themselves  were,  as  indi- 
cated  and   illustrated   in    what    they   said.     We    have 
been  considering  these  compositions   as    products    of 
cultivation,    the    result    of    long  -  continued    processes. 
Their  authors,  in  a  still  more  marked  and  indisputable 
sense,    are   products    of     a    continuous    training    and 
development.      May   we   not,    possibly,    find   them,    /// 
themselves,    quite   as   valuable   witnesses    to    the    pre- 
Davidic  history  of  Israel  as  recorded  in  the  Scriptures 
as  we  have  found  their  works  1     We  will  examine  one 
or  two  characteristic  traits  of  these  men,  which,  because 
they   are    characteristic   and    uniform,  may    be    fairly 
attributed  to  one  man,  whom  we  will  name  the  Psalm- 
ist, be  he  David,  or  some  other,  who  took  on  the  senti- 
ments and   wrote  in  the  spirit  of    the  master.      This 
Hebrew  poet,  to  appearance,  was  quite  unconscious  of 
being,  to  such  an  extent  as  it  has  proved,  a  singer  for 
others  than  himself.     He  was  first  of  all  and  essentially 
an   independent    singer.      It   was    his     own    longings, 
hopes,    confessions,    supplications,   hosannas,     that    he 
gave  utterance  to.     And  his  melodies  are  no  less  his 
that  they  served  to  voice  so  well  the  higher  aspirations 
of  multitudes  of  his  countrymen  and  voice  still  our  own. 
He  had,  for  example,  a  personal  consciousness  that  he 
was  a  sinner  and  a  longing  to  be  free  from  sin.      More 
than  once  is  the  peculiar  exclamation,  so  emphatic  in 
its  form  in  the  original,   "  O  the  blessedness  !  "  made 
the  vehicle  of  his  surcharged  feeling  and  desire  in  this 
respect  (Ps.  i.  1,2;  xxxii.  i,  2) :  — 

"  O  the  blessedness  of  the  man, 
Who  walketh  not  in  the  counsels  of  the  wicked. 
Nor  in  the  way  of  sinners  standeth, 
Nor  in  the  seat  of  scoffers  sitteth ! 


The  Law  and  the  PsalmS.  397 

But  his  delight  is  in  the  law  of  Jehovah. 

O  the  blessedness  of  him, 

Whose  transgression  is  taken  away. 

Whose  sin  is  covered  ! 

O  the  blessedness  of  the  man, 

To  whom  Jehovah  no  guilt  imputeth 

And  in  whose  spirit  there  is  no  guile ! " 

Four  of  the  so-called  penitential  psalms  (vi.,  xxxii., 
xxxviii.,  li.)  are  inscribed  in  our  collection  to  the  pen  of 
David.  Since  the  time  of  Origen  the  Christian  church 
has  found  no  means  more  fit,  on  certain  occasions,  to 
express  her  own  grave  sense  of  ill-desert.  In  one,  the 
true  doctrine  of  sin  is  set  forth  in  terms  so  discrimi- 
nating and  exact  that  we  search  in  vain  elsewhere  in 
the  Scriptures  for  a  parallel.  It  is  held  to  be  more 
than  a  sum  of  sinful  acts  :  it  is  a  nature  that  is  perverse  ; 
something  more  than  drops  of  blood  on  the  driven 
snow :  the  whole  snow  is  crimson.  Whatever  the 
wrong  done  to  the  neighbor,  it  is  first  and  chiefly  a 
wrong  against  God,  who  sees  the  heart  and  judges  the 
secret  motive.  It  is  an  offence  that  has  struck  so 
deep  that  in  some  phases  of  it,  as  he  elsewhere  con- 
fesses (xix.  13),  it  has  gone  beyond  the  ken  of  the 
sinner  himself,  so  that  he  must  cry  out :  "  Who  can 
understand  his  errors  .-'  From  hidden  faults  do  thou 
declare  me  free." 

Confessions  so  profound  and  supplications  so  intense 
as  we  find  here  recorded,  where  the  Psalmist  jjleads,  as 
for  his  life,  to  be  washed  thoroughly  from  his  iniquity 
and  to  be  cleansed  from  his  sin,  declares  that  he  knows 
his  transgressions  and  that  his  sin  is  ever  before  him, 
that  he  cannot  be  content  until  God  has  created  within 
him  a  clean  heart  and  renewed  a  right  spirit  within 
him,  are  not  to  be  passed  lightly  over  even  by  those 


398       Tlie  PcntatciicJi :  Its  Origin  and  Striictnre. 

who  are  seeking  only  for  criteria  of  periods  and  of 
growths  in  these  ancient  documents ;  are  not  to  be 
hastily  passed  over,  especially  by  such.  They  are  a 
product  of  Hebrew  life  and  experience.  They  are  not 
ethnic,  not  even  Shemitic,  in  the  general  sense.  I  have 
before  me  an  Accadian  penitential  psalm,  one  of  the 
best  specimens  that  I  have  been  able  to  find  in  ancient 
profane  literature.^  It  is  about  as  long  as  the  fifty-first 
psalm.  It  confesses  sin  and  deprecates  wrath.  There, 
however,  the  comparison  ends.  Its  confession  is  only 
of  a  sin  of  ignorance.  Its  prayer  is  directed  to  a 
pantheon  and  not  to  God.  It  expects  to  be  heard, 
apparently,  for  its  much  speaking.^  It  dares  to  charge 
the  superior  powers  again  and  again  with  injustice  in 
language  like  this  :  — 

"  How  long,  O  my  god,  who  knewest  (though) 
I  knew  not,  shall  (thy)  strength  (oppress  me)  ?  "  3 

What  made  the  difference,  now,  between  the  Acca- 
dian psalm  and  that  of  David  }  As  a  certain  writer  has 
expressed  it  with  reference  to  another  of  the  composi- 
tions of  the  Psalter  :  There  is  "  underlying  this  poem, 
from  the  first  line  to  the  last,  the  substance  of  philo- 
sophic thought,  apart  from  which,  expressed  or  under- 
stood, poetry  is  frivolous,  and  not  in  harmony  with  the 

"^Records  of  the  Past  (vol  vii.  151  f.).  Cf.  what  Isaac  Taylor  says  of  another  psalm 
containing  some  of  the  characteristic  elements  of  the  fifty-first:  "  Thus  stripped  of  his 
modern  self,  let  him  read  the  sixty-fifth  psalm,  and  let  him  open  his  heart,  and  mind,  too, 
to  admit  the  largeness  of  its  intention,  the  width  of  its  lookout  upon  the  world,  the  just- 
ness of  its  theism,^  if  indeed  a  Creator  is  acknowledged,  and  if  the  Creator  be  good  also,  — 
the  warmth  of  its  piety,  and  the  gladsomeness  of  its  temper,  and  the  landscape  freshness  of 
its  images ;  and  withal  the  preparation  which  is  made  in  its  exordium  for  the  outpourings  of 
a  grateful  piety,  by  the  open  confession  of  sin  and  the  deep  consciousness  of  it  as  the 
reason  of  the  divine  displeasure.  This  ode  supposes  —  it  connotes  —  an  instituted  congrega- 
tional worship,  a  temple,  a  liturgy,  and  a  teaching!  "  —  Isaac  Taylor,  Spirit  of  Hebrew 
Poetry,  p.  206  f. 

2  "  For  the  tearful  supplication  of  my  heart  sixty-five  times  let  the  name  be  invoked  of 
my  god."    See  line  30. 

^  See  line  13  et passi»i. 


The  Laiu  and  the  Psalms.  399 

seriousness  of  human  life  :  tliis  psalm  is  of  a  sort 
which  Plato  would  have  written,  or  Sophocles  —  if  only 
the  one  or  the  other  of  these  minds  had  possessed  a 
heaven-descended  theology."  ^ 

Notice,  moreover,  some  of  the  reasons  which  seem  to 
prompt  the  Psalmist  in  his  desire  to  be  rid  of  sin.  A 
principal  one  is  that  sin  is  offensive  to  God  and  will 
meet  with  certain  retribution  at  his  hands.  There  is 
no  subject  more  often  on  his  lips.  The  man  who 
ascends  the  hill  of  the  Lord  to  stand  in  his  presence 
must  have  clean  hands  and  a  pure  heart  ;  be  one  who 
has  not  lifted  up  his  soul  to  evil  nor  sworn  in  deceit 
(Ps.^xxiv.  3  f.).  Jehovah's  eyes  behold,  his  eyelids  try 
"  the  children  of  men  "  (xi.  4).  He  is  not  only  a  righteous 
God  himself,  but  he  proves  the  depths  of  every  heart 
(vii.  10).  Beginning,  in  fact,  with  the  first  psalm,  and 
going  straight  through  the  second  till  we  come  to  the 
end  of  the  collection,  there  is  nowhere  any  lack  of 
evidence  that  in  the  Psalmist's  mind  there  is  nothing 
that  God  loathes  like  sin,  and  that  to  be  a  friend  of 
God  and  enjoy  his  favor  he,  too,  must  loathe  it  and  put 
it  away. 

Nor  is  there  any  difficulty  in  comprehending  what 
the  Psalmist  brands  as  morally  offensive  and  sinful. 
There  is  no  vacillation  or  hesitation  discoverable  in  his 
delineations.  He  defines  the  character  he  condemns 
by  special  terms,  which,  however  much  they  may  be 
confounded  in  our  translations,  have  apparently  always 
their  fixed  valuation  and  meaning  with  him.  He 
describes  it,  again  and  again,  in  all  the  detail  of  its 
hatefulness  and  deformity.  He  uses  the  appropriate 
device  of  poetic  parallelism  to  set  it  forth  as  the  total 
opposite    of   that    toward    which    he    struggles    and    is 

'  Isaac  Taylor,  ibid.  p.  ao8. 


400       The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

approved  of  God.  He  prays  and  seemingly  as  one 
fully  conscious  of  what  his  words  mean  —  in  language 
which  we  with  all  our  precision  of  philosophic  state- 
ment may  still  adopt  (xxvi.  9 ;  xxviii.  3)  :  — 

"  Gather  not  my  soul  with  sinners, 
Nor  with  blood-stained  men  my  life. 
Draw  me  not  away  with  the  wicked, 
Nor  with  the  workers  of  iniquity ; 
Who  speak  kindly  with  their  neighbors. 
While  evil  is  in  their  hearts." 

He  may  not,  it  is  true,  be  always  free  from  doubts 
concerning  the  retributive  justice  of  his  God,  especially 
when  he  beholds  the  prosperity  of  the  wicked,  that 
they  have  not  the  trouble  of  other  mortals.  Some- 
times, indeed,  it  almost  seems  to  him  that  he  has 
cleansed  his  heart  in  vain  and  washed  his  hands  in 
innocence.  But  to  give  utterance  to  such  a  thought 
would  be,  he  says,  to  be  faithless  to  the  generation  of 
God's  children.  It  would  be,  above  all,  to  fail  to 
understand  the  lesson  of  God's  sanctuary  (Ps.  Ixxiii. 
passim).  The  generation  of  God's  people  !  The  sanct- 
uary !  What  was  the  secret,  then,  which  they  carried 
and  which  was  also  the  secret  of  Providence  and  of 
Israelitish  character .'' 

It  may  be  said,  now,  that  all  this  does  not  prove 
beyond  dispute  that  the  Psalmist  had  the  ceremonial 
law  before  him  or  that  it  antedated  his  time.  Very 
true.  It  is  not  simply  after  ceremonial  holiness  that 
he  is  striving.  It  is  not  ceremonial  impurity  which  he 
mostly  characterizes  as  sin.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
must  be  remembered  that  it  is  not  ceremonial  holiness 
which  is  the  sole  requirement  of  the  Pentateuch  or 
of  the  Levitical  institutions.  It  is  not  even  their 
principal    requirement,  but  the    loyalty  and   love  of  a 


The  Laiv  and  the  Psalms.  \0\ 

consecrated  heart  (Lev.  xix.  i8  ;  Deut.  vi.  5).  And 
might  it  not  be  expected  that  a  poet,  if  anybody,  would 
look  and  reach  toward  the  ideal  ?  that,  especially,  an 
inspired  poet  would  take  in  that  of  which  rites  and 
ceremonies  were   only  the    symbol    and    preparation  ? 

The  "mystery  of  the  blood"  he  may  not  have 
fathomed.  What  Old  Testament  writer  has  clearly 
done  so,  if  we  except  Isaiah  (liii.)  ?  But  could  he  have 
reached  a  higher  level  of  revelation  or  of  experience 
than  he  has  done  in  the  petition  (Ps.  li.  9)  :  "  Un-sin 
(thou)  me  with  hyssop  and  I  shall  be  clean :  Wash 
(thou)  me  and  I  shall  be  whiter  than  snow."  He  sees 
in  the  rite  only  a  symbol,  it  is  true,  and  not  a  type. 
But  the  rite  he  does  not  fail  to  see,  or  the  essential 
thing  about  it,  whether  as  symbol  or  type,  that  it  is  to 
the  priest-king,  Jehovah,  to  whom  he  must  look  for 
pardon  and  that  to  him  he  will  not  look  in  vain.  In 
this  circumstance,  after  all,  we  find  the  culmination  of 
biblical  teaching,  both  of  the  old  covenant  and  the 
new.  And  that  we  find  it  here  in  the  Psalms,  even  in 
their  earliest  portions,  is  something  to  be  accounted  for 
by  those  who  believe  in  the  natural  evolution  of  the 
Israelitish,  as  of  every  other  religion.^ 

Another  specially  noticeable  trait  of  our  Psalmist,  as 

'  Cf.  Delitzsch,  Covt.  ueber  die  Psalnten  (1873)  p.  53  f.  Perowne  has  some  pertinent 
remarks  concerning  the  psalmists'  attitude  toward  sacrifices  f^The  Psalms,  Andover,  1882, 
vol.  i.  p.  47):  "He  evidently  did  not  regard  those  sacrifices,  as  so  many  Christian 
writers  have  regarded  them,  as  having  in  the  case  of  those  who  offered  them  in  penitence 
and  faith  a  spiritual  efficacy.  Their  only  efficacy  to  him  was  the  efficacy  which  the 
law  itself  assigned  to  them;  they  were  the  instruments  of  restoring  him,  when  he  had 
transgressed,  to  his  place  as  a  member  of  the  theocracy,  a  citizen  of  the  visible  kingdom  of 
God.  But  they  did  not  confer  or  convey  ihe  rcmissioti  0/  sins.  They  were  external, 
and  their  efficacy  was  external.  .  .  .  How  far  the  Jewish  believer  saw  into  the  typical 
meaning  of  his  sacrifices  is  a  question  which  cannot  now  be  answered.  .  .  .  But  the 
typical  meaning  and  the  real  efficacy  are  two  very  different  things.  In  truth,  as  has  been 
truly  argued  (McDonnell's  DoHneUa7t  Lectures.  Appendix  to  the  First  Sermon),  if  we 
assign  to  the  type  the  virtue  of  the  antitype,  if  we  make  the  remission  of  sins  procured 
by  the  one  coextensive  with  the  remission  of  sins  procured  by  the  other,  we  destroy  the 
type  altogether.  The  sacrifice  had  no  moral  value.  Hence  the  Psalmist  says,  not 
sacrifice,  but  a  broken  heart." 


402       The  PentatciicJi :    Its  Origin  and  Structure.. 

displayed  in  many  different  compositions,  is  the  evident 
closeness  of  his  personal  relationship  to  God.  When 
every  allowance  has  been  made  for  poetic  license  and 
oriental  glow,  there  is  a  most  remarkable  residuum  left 
needing  to  be  accounted  for.  It  is  not  so  strange  that 
we  hear  the  apostle  John  saying,  "  Behold  what  manner 
of  love  the  Father  hath  bestowed  upon  us  that  we 
should  be  called  the  children  of  God"  (i  John  iii.  i) ; 
or  the  apostle  Paul  declaring,  "For  me  to  live  is 
Christ "  (Phil.  i.  21)!  They  stand  in  the  noontide 
blaze  of  revelation.  But  we  have  in  this  collection  of 
old  Israelitish  songs,  and  on  its  opening  pages,  some  of 
them,  at  least,  dating  from  the  foundations  of  the  first 
temple,  expressions  of  trust  and  confidence  in  God,  of 
a  tender,  absorbing  communion  with  him,  that  yield  to 
nothing  which  the  New  Testament  can  offer.  We  are 
embarrassed,  in  fact,  at  the  very  outset  by  the 
universality  and  excess  of  this  element  in  the  Psalter. 
It  will  be  no  easy  task  by  mere  examples  to  give  an 
adequate  idea  of  either  its  richness  or  its  importance 
in  our  ethical  and,  in  so  far  here,  our  critical  valuation 
of  the  Psalms. 

There  is,  for  instance,  the  bold  contrast  which  the 
Psalmist  sees  between  himself  and  those  who  are 
"  without  God "  and  seek  their  highest  good  in  his 
gifts   and  not   in  him   (iv.  passim)  :  — 

"  Jehovah  keepeth  apart  his  beloved  for  himself: 
When  I  call  him,  Jehovah  heareth  me. 
There  are  many  who  say, 
'  Who  will  sliow  us  what  is  good?' 
Lift  upon  us,  O  Jehovah, 
The  light  of  tliy  presence! 
Thou  hast  put  gladness  in  my  heart. 
More  than  in  the  time  their  corn  and  new  wine  increased. 


The  Laio  and  iJic  Psalms.  403 

In  peace  I  will  lay  me  down, 

And  at  once  will  sleep, 

For  thou,  O   Jehovah,  when  I  am  alone, 

Makest  me  dwell  securely." 

In  another  place  he  hesitates  not  to  pour  out  his 
complaints  to  his  heavenly  Friend  (vi.),  detailing  them 
one  by  one,  just  as  a  child  might  do  in  its  mother's  ear, 
and  as  he  goes  on  it  is  pleasant  to  see  how  his  heart 
is  lightened  and  his  voice  takes  on  the  ring  of  gladness 
and  deliverance.  He  never  forgets,  however,  what 
sort  of  a  being  Jehovah  is,  so  as  to  presume  upon  his 
condescension.  He  knows  that  he  is  righteous  and 
that  only  "  the  righteous  shall  have  vision  of  his  face  " 
(xi.  7).  But  confidence  and  love  are  to  him  no  presump- 
tion. "  My  shield,"  he  says,  "  is  upon  Jehovah '" 
(vii.  11).  He  cannot  keep  within  his  own  bosom  the 
exuberance  of  his  joy.  If  his  case  be  exceptional,  he 
certainly  sees  no  reason  why  it  should  not  be  the  rule. 
Out  of  an  evident  experience  he  exclaims  (xxxiv.  9)  :  — 

"  O  taste  and  see  that  Jehovah  is  good. 

How  blest  the  man  who  taketh  refuge  in  him  "  ! 

"  Cast  thy  burden  on  Jehovah, 

And  he  will  sustain  thee"   (Iv.  22). 

"  Though  one  fall,  it  shall  not  be  at  full  length, 
For  Jehovah  supporteth  him  with  his  hand"   (xxxvii.  24). 

Note  the  significant,  endearing  other  titles  which 
he  applies  to  him  whose  final  title  is  Jehovah.  He  is 
a  "rock,"  a  ".shield,"  a  "fortress,"  a  "deliverer,"  the 
soft  "brooding  of  wings,"  a  "refuge,"  a  "cleft  rock." 
In  fact,  the  sentiment  now  so  current  in  Christian 
circles  in  the  sweet  lines, 

"  Rock  of  ages,  cleft  for  me, 
Let  mc  hide  myself  in  thee," 


4O4       The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

IS  a  sentiment  that  was  almost  as  current  in  David's 
time.  And  at  once  what  a  longing  and  what  a  satis- 
faction is  voiced  in  utterances  like  these  {xlii.  i  ; 
xxviii.  4)  :  — 

"  One  thing  have  I  asked  of  Jehovah, 

That  will  I  seek  after: 

That  I  may  dwell  in  the  house  of  Jehovah, 

All  the  days  of  my  life." 
"  As  the  hart  panteth  after  the  waterbrooks 

So  panteth  my  soul  after  thee,  O  God." 

How  could  we  spare  from  our  Bibles,  even  with  the 
gracious  assurances  of  the  Master  concerning  the 
Father's  love  and  care  for  us,  such  an  abandonment  of 
trust  in  the  divine  Providence  as  is  expressed  in  the 
twenty-third  psalm,  beginning  and  carrying  through  to 
the  end  the  thought,  — 

"  The  Lord  is  my  Shepherd, 
I  shall  not  want " .''  1 

Or  what  would  it  cost  us  to  give  up  one  such  psalm  as 
the  sixty-third,  where  as  on  the  chiming  silver  bells 
changes  are  rung  on  the  opening  sentiment, — 

"  O  God  !   thou  art  my  God  ;   earnestly  I  seek  thee  "  ? 

But  in  nothing  perhaps  is  the  Psalmist's  intimacy  of 
union  and  communion  with  God  more  clearly  demon- 

1  "  This  is  an  ode  which  for  beauty  of  sentiment  is  not  to  be  matched  in  the  circuit  of 
all  literature.  In  its  way  down  through  three  thousand  years  or  more,  this  psalm  has 
penetrated  to  the  depths  of  millions  of  hearts;  it  has  gladdened  homes  of  destitution  and 
discomfort;  it  has  whispered  hope  and  joy  amid  tears  to  the  utterly  solitary  and  forsaken, 
whose  only  refuge  was  in  Heaven.  Beyond  all  range  of  probable  calculation  have  these 
dozen  lines  imparted  a  power  of  endurance  under  suffering,  and  strength  in  feebleness, 
and  have  kept  alive  the  flickering  flame  of  religious  feeling  in  hearts  that  were  nigh  to 
despair.  The  divine  element  herein  embodied  has  given  proof,  millions  of  times  repeated, 
of  its  reality  and  of  its  efficacy,  as  a  formula  of  tranquil  trust  in  God,  and  of  a  grateful 
sense  of  \\\?,  goodness,  which  all  who  do  trust  in  Him  may  use  for  themselves,  and  use  it 
until  it  has  become  assimilated  to  their  own  habitual  fulness."  —  Isaac  Taylor,  ibid.  p.  77  f. 


The  Law  and  the  Psalms.  405 

strated  than  in  the  strength  of  confidence  and  the 
boldness  of  courage  it  gives  him  respecting  death  and 
the  future  beyond  it.  It  begins  already  in  the 
sixteenth  psalm  (vs.  8-1 1),  where,  having  said  that  he 
sets  Jehovah  before  him  always,  he  adds  :  — 

"  So  my  heart  is  glad,  my  spirit  exulteth ; 
My  flesh,  too,  abideth  securely. 
For  thou  wilt  not  abandon  my  soul  to  Sheol, 
Nor  let  thy  beloved  waste  away  in  the  grave. 
Thou  wilt  make  known  to  me  the  path  of  life : 
In  thy  presence  is  fulness  of  joy ; 
At  thy  right  hand  are  pleasures  forevermore." 

In  like  manner  in  the  seventeenth  (vs.  14,  15),  where, 
in  contrast  with  the  men  of  the  world  whose  portion  is 
in  the  present  life,  he  exclaims  :  — 

"  As  for  me,  in  righteousness 
Shall  I  have  vision  of  thy  face ; 
I  shall  be  satisfied,  when  I  awake  with  thy  likeness." 

Again  in  the  twenty-third  (vs.  4),  which  seems  to 
cover  in  its  brief  compass  the  whole  area  of  possible 
human  experiences  :  — 

"  Yea,  when  I  walk  through  the  valley  of  death's  shadow, 
I  will  fear  no  evil ;    for  thou  art  with  me." 

And  in  a  connection  so  common  in  the  other  examples, 
in  the  forty-ninth  :  — 

"But  God  will  redeem  my  soul  from  the  dominion  of  Sheol, 
For  he  will  receive  me." 

And,  finally,  in  Psalm  Ixxiii.  (23-26),  in  a  beauty  and 
tenderness  of  expression  that  cannot  fail  to  move  the 
stoutest  sceptic  even  :  — 


4o6       The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

"  But  as  for  me,  I  am  ever  with  thee ; 

Thou  holdest  with  thy  hand  my  right  hand. 

With  thy  counsel  thou  wilt  guide  me, 

And  afterward  receive  me  to  glory. 

Whom  have  I  in  heaven  but  thee? 

And  with  thee,  I  delight  not  in  the  earth. 

My  flesh  and  my  heart  fail, 

But  God  is  the  strength  of  my  heart, 

And  my  portion  forever." 

Union  with  the  Lord  —  what  else  is  the  ground  of 
hope  for  immortality  and  eternal  life  under  the  new 
economy.?  "Because  I  live,"  said  the  Master,  "ye  shall 
live  also  "  (John  xiv.  9).!  Union  with  the  Lord  him- 
self, that  is  also  the  final  ground  of  hope  for  life  and 
happiness  beyond  the  grave  under  the  old  economy.  I 
am  well  aware  of  the  objection  that  will  be  made  to 
such  a  use  of  these  psalms.  It  will  be  said  that 
they  are  of  exceptional  import,  that  they  represent 
individual,  sporadic  attainment  only  and  by  no  means 
that  of  the  masses  of  Israel. 

Let  it  be  admitted  that  this  is  true.  It  should  by  all 
means  be  admitted  as  probably  true.  Still  the  question 
remains.  How  came  it  about  that  individuals,  that 
anybody,  reached  a  pitch  of  development  so  amazing  in 
times  so  early  and,  as  is  alleged,  so  crude  and  immature  ? 
No  hypothesis  of  a  later  religious  "  coloring  "  given  to 
documents  ancient  in  themseves,  such  as  is  made  to 
account  for  many  supposed  anomalies  in  the  historical 
books,  will    here  avail.      Nay,  the  very  abundance  of 

1  Rowland  Hill,  it  is  said,  was  accustomed  for  many  years  before  his  death  to  repeat 
oyer  to  himself  often  this  simple  stanza:  — 

"  And  when  I  'm  to  die, 
Receive  me,  I'll  cry; 

For  Jesus  has  loved  me,  I  cannot  tell  why; 
But  this  I  can  find: 
We  two  are  so  joined, 
That  he  '11  not  be  in  glory  and  leave  me  behind." 


The  Lazv  and  the  Psalms.  407 

religious  teaching  here  is  one  of  the  strongest  proofs 
that  that  of  the  historical  books  is  not  coloring  at  all, 
but  only  the  natural  texture  of  the  fabric.  Here,  at 
least,  web  and  woof  are  of  one  pattern  and  one  stuff. 
It  is  not  peculiar  expressions  that  attract  our  attention : 
it  is  compositions  that  are  peculiar  throughout  ;  it  is 
psalms  and  the  men  who  wrote  them.  How  is  it 
possible  that  we  have  works  of  this  nature  and  men  of 
this  stature .-'  A  Pentateuch  largely  from  the  pen  of 
Moses  and  his  contemporaries  will  not  be  so  difficult 
a  problem  when  this  problem  is  settled. 

We  can  comprehend  how  such  an  Israelitish  singer 
as  we  have  been  listening  to,  in  some  important 
respects  so  far  beyond  Moses  and  his  work,  supposing 
that  the  Pentateuch  was  his  work,  was  the 
crown  of  a  certain  development,  but  as  its  virtual 
beginning  he  seems  to  us  an  impossible  character. 
We  can  see,  for  example,  how  it  would  be  possible  for 
a  David  to  grow  into  this  intimacy  with  Jehovah  and 
this  voluminous  expression  of  such  intimacy,  when  we 
think  of  Abraham,  who  was  called  the  "friend of  God"  ; 
of  Moses,  who  spoke  with  him  face  to  face ;  of  Samuel, 
who  from  childhood  on  responded  to  the  divine  call 
with  a  "speak  Lord,  for  thy  servant  heareth  "  !  But, 
if  you  reverse  the  pyramid,  putting  the  apex  where  the 
base  should  be,  the  Psalmist  somehow  in  the  place  of 
the  Patriarch,  and  admit  no  regulative  norm  of  holy 
living  and  aspiration  such  as  the  so-called  Mosaic  insti- 
tutions offer,  the  matter  becomes  simply  inexplicable 
to  us. 

I  read  in  one  of  the  daily  journals  the  following 
sentiment,  quoted  from  a  sermon  on  last  Lord's  day  : 
"The  very  first  chapters  of  Genesis  teach  us  that 
man's    surroundings    deteriorate    in    obedience    to    a 


4o8       The  PeiitateiicJi :  Its  Origijt  and  Structure. 

deterioration  in  man  himself.  The  inward  Eden  is 
related  to  the  outward  Eden  as  cause  and  effect. 
Tenement-house  reform,  for  example,  taken  as  the 
handmaid  of  other  movements  deserves  great  praise, 
but  taken  alone  is  of  little  value.  No  fact  is  more 
evident  than  that  certain  stages  of  civilization  require 
certain  corresponding  surroundings.  Place  a  family  in 
a  house  that  is  above  it,  and  the  family  will  either 
emigrate  or  degrade  the  house  to  its  own  level.  Any 
attempt  to  elevate  degraded  man  by  simply  changing 
his  surroundings  is  like  attempting  to  elevate  the 
unhatched  chicken  into  a  robin  by  tinting  the  shell, 
or  to  precipitate  spring  by  shoveling  off  and  melting 
the  snow  upon  your  sidewalk." 

One  chief  trouble  with  our  critics  has  been  that 
they  have  not  carried  their  induction  from  facts,  their 
study  of  symptoms,  far  enough.  They  have  marked 
almost  exclusively,  and  dwelt  upon,  the  outward  evi- 
dences of  deterioration  in  Israel.  They  have  largely 
failed  to  mark  it  as  deterioration.  They  have  seemed  to 
forget  that  on  the  hypothesis  of  a  degenerate  and  fallen 
race,  the  outward  paradise  to  be  regained  might  be  ex- 
pected to  follow,  and  sometimes  follow  very  gradually, 
the  inward  paradise  which  is  its  ground.  They  have 
been  all  too  ready  to  draw  immediate  conclusions  from 
evil  surroundings,  and  too  slow  to  note  the  signs  of 
high  ethical  and  spiritual  attainment  in  spite  of  evil 
surroundings.  Without  achieving  a  really  complete 
survey  of  all  the  circumstances,  they  have  adopted  as  a 
leading  principle  of  their  reasoning  the  shallow  maxim 
that  "circumstances  make  the  man."  While  if  there 
be  one  lesson  more  than  another  that  the  history  of 
human  progress  and  enlightenment  teaches,  it  is  that, 
under  an  all-controlling  Providence,  the  man,  if  he  be 


TJie  Law  and  tJic  Psalvis.  409 

a  man,  makes  the  circumstances.  "  For  every  house  is 
built  by  some  one  [even  the  house  of  Hebrew  history 
and  worship];    but    he  "i^at  built  all  things  is   God" 

(Heb.iii.  4).  '{D 


^r. 


LITERATURE  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE 

RELATED  CRmCISM  OF  THE 

OLD  TESTAMENT.^ 


Aaron.     Co7n.  in  PentateucJiiDn.     Jena,  1710. 

Aben  Ezra.     Handschriftlicher  Com.  iieber  Exodus.     Prag,   1840. 

Abenmelech.     Scholia  in  V.  T.     Ven.,  15 18. 

Abicht.     Exej-citat.  de  Servorwn  Hcbraor.  Acquis.      Leipz.,  1704. 

Abrabanel.     Com.  in  Pent.  Mosis.     Frankf.,  1708. 

Abrabanel.     Com.  in  Prophetas  Priores.     Leipz.,  1686. 

Ackermann.     Introd.  in  Libros  Sacros  Vet.  Foederis.     Ed.    Tertia. 

Viennae,  1853. 
Adler.     "  Der  Versohnungstag  in  der  Bibel."  Zeitschrift  f.  Alttest. 

Wissenschaft.     Nos.  i,  2.     1883. 
Ainsworth.     Annotations  on  the  Five  Books  of  Moses,  etc.      Lond., 

1639.     Reprinted,  Glasg.,  1846. 
Airy.     Notes  on  the  Earlier  Heb.  Script.     Lond.,  1876. 
Alard.     Pericopa  Pent  at.  Bib.  Triglossometrica.     161 8. 
Albo.     Grund  u.  Glaubenslehre  d.  Mos.  Religion.     Frankf.,  1838. 
Alcuimus.     QncBstioncs  in  Genesin.     Hagen,  1529. 
Alexander,  A.     Hist,  of  the  Israelitish  Nation.     Phil.,  1853. 
Alexander,  W.  L.     "  Age  and  Authorship  of  the   Pent."     Sunday 

Mag.,  May,  Oct.,  1868. 
Alford.     Getiesis,  etc.,  for  English  Readers.     Lond.,  1871. 
Alford.     The  Book  of  Genesis,  &tc.     Commentary.     Lond.,  1872. 
"Alleged  Geolog.  Ev.  of  the  Antiquity  of  Man."     Brit.  Quarterly, 

Apr.,  1863. 
Allen,   G.     "Who  was  the   Primitive  Man?"     Fortnightly  Rev., 

Sept.,  1882. 
Allen,  J.  H.    "Criticism  of  the  Old  Test."     Unit.  Review,  \'i\.  135. 
Allen,  J.  H.     Hebrew  Alen  and  Times.     Bost.  and  Lond.,   1861. 
Allix.     Refex.  snr  les  cinq  Livres  de  Moyse.     Lond.,  1687. 

1  There  has  been  no  effort  to  make  this  list  exh.-\ustive.  A  large  number  of  titles,  in 
fact,  were  omitted  at  the  last  moment  for  want  of  space.  It  will  be  found,  however,  to 
include  the  more  important  books  and  articles,  old  and  new,  relating  to  the  Pentateuch 
and  the  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament  as  especially  bearing  on  the  Pentateuch.  Rev. 
Ernest  C.  Richardson,  Librarian  of  the  Hartford  Theological  Seminary,  has  rendered 
valuable  assistance  in  its  collection  and  verification. 


Literature  of  the  Peiitatettch.  41 1 

Aim,  V.  d.     TJicologische   Briefe  an  die  Gebildeten  der   Deutschen 

Nation.     3  Bd.     Bd.  \.,  Das  Alte.  Test.     Leipz.,  1862. 
Alting.     De  Vaticinio  Patriarchae  Jacobi.       Franeker,  1660. 
Amnion.     Nova  Versio   Gra^ca  Pent  at.  ex  miico  S.   Marci  Biblio- 

tkecce  Codice  Veneto.     Erlang.,  1790. 
Andr6.     Expos.  Apologctique  de  la  Thcol.  dii  Pentat.     Paris,  1849. 
Andrews.     •' The  New  Pentateuch  Criticism."     Heb.  Student,  Dec, 

1882. 
Anger.     De  Onkelo  Chaldaico.     Leipz.,  1845. 
Anti-Colenso.     Lond.,  1863. 
Aretius.     Cojii.  in  Pcntaieuchnin.     Bern,  1602. 
Argus.      Was  Adam  tlie  First  Man  Created?      Lond.,  1878. 
Argyll.     Primeval  Alan.     Lond.,  i86g, 
Argyll.     "  Recent  Speculations  on  Primeval  Man."     Good  Words, 

March,  1868. 
Arnaud.     Le  Pentateiique  Mosdique  defendit.     Paris,  1865. 
Arnold,  A.     See  Tuch. 

Arnold,  J.  M.     Genesis  a7id Science.     Lond.,  1875. 
Anmdell.     Scientific  Vabie  of  Tradition.     Lond.,  1879. 
Askenazi.     Notes  et  Com.  sur  le  Pentatcuque.     Leghorn,  1881. 
Astruc.     Conjectures  sur  les  Memoir  es  Orginaux,  do?it  il  par  ait  que 

Moyse  s'est    servi  pour    composer    le    Livre    de    la    Genise. 

Bmxelles,  1753. 
Attersol.     Commentary  upon  Numbers.     Lond.,  161 8. 
Atwater.     Tlie  Tabcr>uicle  of  tlie  Jeivs.     2d.  ed.     New  York,  1877. 
Auberlen.     "  Die  Mes.  Weissagungen   d.  Mos.  Zeit."     Jahrb.  f. 

Dents.  Theol.,  1858,  p.  778. 
August! .     Grundriss   einer  Historisch-Kritischen   Einleitung  hi's 

Alte  Testament .     2te  Aufl.,  Leipz.,  1827. 
Augusti.     See  Hopfner. 
Augustine.      "  Ouasstiones  in    Heptateuchum."     Opera,   torn.    iii. 

p.  674,  ed.  Migne. 
Auscher.     Sur  le  Veritable  Caract^re  de  la  Loi  Mosdique.     Besan- 

9on,  1876. 
Autenrieth.     D.  Ursprung  der  Beschneidung,  etc.     Tubing. ,  1829. 
"  Authorsliip  of  Genesis."     Canad.  Montldy,  xiii.  409. 
Babington.     Comfortable  Notes  upon  the  Pent.     Lond.,  1637. 
Baclier.     Jbn  Esra's  Einleit.  zu  seine/n  Pentateuch-Commentar ,  als 

Beitrag  zur  Geschichte  d.  Bibel-exegese  bcleuchtet.     Wien,  1876. 
Bachmann.     Die  Festgesetze  d.  Pentateuchs.     Berlin,  1858. 
Bachmann.     Das  Buck  d.  Ricldcr  ausgelegt .     Berlin,  1867. 
Back.     Geschichte  d.  fudischeji  Volkes  it.  seifier  Literatur.     Lissa, 

1878. 
Baehr.      Symbolik     d.     Mos'dischen     Cultus.     2te    Aufl.     2     Bde. 

Hcidclb.,  1874. 
Bacr.      With  Franz  Delitzsch  is   publisliing  a  critical  text  of  the 

Hebrew  O.  T.     Of  the  Pent,   only  Gen.   has  as  yet  appeared. 
Baldeweg.     Pas  Zcitalter  der  Riclder.     Zittau,  1S77. 
Balfour.      "Tlie  Sinai  Covenant."     British  and  F'or.  Ev.  Rev., 

July,  1877. 


412       TJie  PentatencJi:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Balgarnie.     "  A  Chapter  in  Antediluvian  Chronology."     Expositor, 

1878,  p.  449;   1880,  p.  215. 
Baltzer.     D.  Bibl.  Schopfungs-geschichte.     Leipz.,  1867-72. 
Bannister.      Epito)ne  of  the  Laws,  Lit.  attd  Relig.   of  the  Jews. 

Lond.,  1861. 
Barclay.      Heathen   Mythology   Corroborated,    etc.,    by    Scripture. 

Lond.,  1884. 
Baring-Gould.     Heathenism  and  Mosaism.     2  vols.     Lond.,  1869. 
Baring-Gould.     Origin   and  Developme?it  of  Relig.  Belief.     1869. 
Baring-Gould.     Legends  of  Old  Test.  Characters.     2  vols.     Lond., 

1871. 
Barradas.      Itinerarium  Filiorum    Israel  ex  A^gypto  in    Terr  am 

Reproinissionis.     Coimbra,  161 7. 
Barrett.     Old  Test.  Criticism.     2  vols.     Lond.,  1847. 
Barrows.     "  Mosaic  Narrative  of  the  Creation."     Bibliotheca   Sac. 

xiii.  p.  743. 
Barrows.     "  Mosaic  Six  Days  and  Geology."      Ibid.,  xiv.  p.  61. 
Barrows.     "Missionary   Spirit   of  Psalms   and   Prophets."     Ibid., 

xvii.  p.  457. 
Barry.     Introd.  to  Study  of  Old  Test.     Lond.,  1856. 
Bartlett.     From  Egypt  to  Palestine.     New  York,  1879. 
Bartlett.     "Authorship  of  the  Pentateuch."     Bibliotheca  Sac.  xx. 

p.  799;  xxi.  pp.  495,  725. 
Bartlett.     Sources  of  History  in  the  Pentateuch.     New  York,  1883. 
Bate.     Philos.  Priticiples  of  Moses  Defended.     Lond.,  1744. 
Bate.     Transl.  of  Petit.  fro7H  the  Hebrew.     Lond.,  1773. 
Baudissen .     Jahve  et  Moloch .     Leipz . ,  1 87 1 . 
Baudissen.     "Unsprung    d.    Gottesnamens    '/aw."     Zeitschrift  f. 

Hist.  Theologie,  1875,  iii. 
Baudissen.     Stiidien  z.  Semit.  Religionsgeschichte.    Leipz.,  1876-79. 
Bauer,  B.     Die  Religion   d.   Alien   Testatnents.     2    Bde.     Berlin, 

1838,  1839. 
Bauer,  B.     "  Der  Mosaische   Ursprung  d.  Gesetzgebung  d.  Pen- 

tateuchs  Vertheidigt."     Zeitsch.f.  Speculative  Theol.,  1836, 
Bauer,  E.     StreitderKritikmitKircheu.Staat.     Bern,  1844. 
Bauer,   G.    L.     Lehrbuch   der  Hebr.  Alterthumer.     Nlirnb.,  1797. 

2te  Aufl.,  von  Rosenmliller,  1835. 
Bauer,  G.  L.     Bcschreibung  d.  Gottesdienst.  Verfassung  der  alien 

Hebr  der.     2  Bde.     Nlirnb.,  1805. 
Bauer,  G.  L.     Hebr.  Mythologie  des  Alien  u.  N.   Test.     2  Bde. 

Nlirnb.,  1802. 
Bauer,   G.   L.      Entwurf  einer  Historisch-Krit.    Einleitung  in  d. 

Schrift.    d.  A.  T.,  Nlirnb.,  1794  If. 
Bauer,  G.  L.     Handb.  d.  Geschichte  d.  Hebrd.  Nation  von   ihrer 

Entstehung,  etc.     Nlirnb.,  1800-1804. 
Baumgarten.      TJicolog.    Coininctiiar  zum  Pentateuch.     Kiel,   1842. 
Baur,  F.  C.     Die  Natur religion  dcs  Alterthums.     Stuttg.,  1824. 
Baur,  F.  C.     "  Ursprung.  Bedeutung  d.  Passafestes  u.  d.  Beschneid- 

ungsritus.      Tubing.  Zeitschrift  f.  Theologie,  1832,  p.  47. 
Baur,  F.  C.    "  Der.  Heb.  Sabbath  u.  die  Nationalfeste  d.  Mosaischen 

Cultus."     Ibid.,  p.  125, 


Literature  of  the  Pentateuch.  413 

Baur,  G.  A.  L.     Sechs  Tabellen  uber  die  Geschichte  d.  Is.   Volkes. 

Giessen,  1848. 
Baur,  G.  A.    L.     D.   weltgeschichtliche  Bedeutung  d.   Is.    Volkes. 

Ibid.,  1847. 
Baylee.     Genesis  and  Geology.     Liverpool,  1859. 
Beach.     Hist.    Value  of  I  he  Fir  si  Eleven  Chaps,  of  Gen.    Best., 

1844. 
Bechor-Schor.     Com.  zu7n  Pentateuch.    Ed.  by  Jellinek.     Mlinchen, 

1856. 
Beecher.     "  Logical  Methods  of  Professor  Kuenen."     Presbyt.Rev., 

Oct.,  1882. 
Beecher.     "  Historical  Evidence  vs.  Critical  Evidence."     Christian 

Thought,  Nov.,  Dec,  1884. 
Beecher.     "  Chronol.  of  Period  of  the  Judges."     Old  Test.  Student, 

Jan.,  1884. 
Beer.     Leben  Abrahams  tmch  d.  J'udischcn  Sage.     Leipz.,  1859. 
Beke.     Researches  in  Primeval  History.     Vol.  i.     Lond.,  1834. 
Bellamy.     History  of  All  Religions.     Lond.,  1813. 
Bellermann.      De   Ustc   Palceographice    Hebraicce    ad    Explicatida 

Biblia  Sacra,  etc.,  1804. 
Bellermann.     Handb.  der  Bib.  Liter  at  ur.     Erfurt,  1787  ff. 
Bellermann.     Die  Urim  u.  Thuinmini.     Berlin,  1824. 
Bellermann.     Ueber  die  Alte  Sitte  Steine  su  salben.      1793. 
Bellet.     God's  Witness  in  Prophecy  and  History  (treats  Gen.  xlix.), 

Lond.,  1883. 
Benary.     De  HebrcEorum  Leviratu.     Berlin,  1835. 
Ben  David.     Zur  Berechnung  u.   Gesch.  d.  fiidischen  Kalenders. 

Berlin,  1817. 
Ben  David.     D.  Religion  d.  Hebraer  vor  Mose.     Berlin,  181 2. 
Ben   David.      "  Ueber     Geschriebenes    u.     Mlindliches     Gesetz." 

Zeitsch.f.  Wiss.  d.  fudcntJiums,  1822,  p.  197. 
Benisch.     Coletiso''s  Objections  Crit.  ExaiJiined.     Lond.,  1863, 
Benisch.     Rise  and  Development  of  fudaism.     Lond.,  1874. 
Benson.     The  Mor.  and  Hist.    Difficulties  of  Genesis.     Hulsean 

Lect.,  1822. 
Bergel.     Mythologie  d.  alien  Hebrcer.     2  Bde.     Leipz.,  1883. 
Berger,  G.     Beweis  v.  d.  Falnqkeit  d.  ersten    Menschen.     Berlin, 

1780. 
Berger,  J.     Praktische  Einleit.  in''s  Alte  Tesiatneni.     Leipz.,   1799. 
Berger,  P.     EAnge  d'Astarie.     Paris,  1879. 
Bergmann.     Origine,  Signification,  et  Histoire  .   .  .  de  la  Circon- 

cision.     Strassb.,  1844. 
Bergmann.     Jacob's  Trautn  zu  Bethel  erkldrt.     Strassb.,  1884. 
Bergson.     D.  Beschneidungv.  Histor.  Krit.  u.   Medicin.     Stand- 

punkte.     Berlin,  1847. 
Berliner.     D.  Massorah  zutn  Targtim  Onkelos.     Leipz.,  1877. 
Berliner.     Targum   Onkelos  Herausg.  u.  Erldutert.     Berlin,  1884. 
Berliner.     See  Raschi. 

Bernard.     Creed  and  Ethics  of  the  fews.     Lond.,  1832. 
Bernhardi.     Com.  de  Causis  quibus  effect\um  sit,  ut  regnum  fuda: 

diutius  persisteret  quam  regnum  Is.     Lowen,  1824. 


414        1^^^^  PentatcucJi:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Bernstein.  Ursprung  d.  Sagen  v.  Ab.,  Is.  u.  Jacob.  Berlin,  1871. 
Bernus.     Richard  Simon  et  son  Histoire  Critique  du   Vieux  Testa- 

ment.     Lausanne,  1869. 
B^ron.     Origifie  de  r Unique  Couple  Humain,  etc.     Paris,  1867. 
Berruyer.     Histoire  du  Peuple  de  Dieu.     Paris,  1728. 
Bertheau.     Zur  GeschicJUe  d.  Israeliten.     Getting.,  1842. 
Bertheau.     Die  Sieboi  Gruppen  Mos.  Gesetze.     Getting.,  1840. 
Bertheau.     Beschreibung  d.  Lage  d.    Paradieses,   etc.      Getting., 

1847-48. 
Bertheau.      "Die  Zahlen   der  Genesis   in    Kapitel    5    und.     11." 

Jahrbucher  f.  Dent.  Thcologie,  1878,  p.  659. 
Bertheau.     "Die  alttestamentl.    Weissagung  von   Israels   Reichs- 

herrlichkeit  in  seinem  Lande."     Jalirb.  f.  Dent.   T/ieoL,   pp. 

314,  595  (1859)  ;  p.  486  (i860). 
Bertheau.     "  D.  Verschied.  Berechnungen  d.  zwei  ersten  Perioden 

in  d.  Genesis."    Zeitsch.  d.  Deutsch.  Morg.  Gesellschaft,  1845, 

p.  40. 
Bertheau.     Richteru.  Ruth  erklixrt  (2te  Aufl.,  Leipz.,  1883.     Kurz- 

gefastses  exeget.  Handb.). 
Berthet.      The  Prehistoric  World.     Phil.  :  Porter  and  Coates. 
Bertholdt.     Historisch-kritische  Einleitimg  tn  SamintlicJie  Kanon. 

u.  Apok.  Schriftend.  Alt.  u.N.  Testaments.    6  vols.    Erlangen, 

1812-19.  ^ 

Berthoud.      "Les     Elements     Divins     des    Religions    Antiques." 

Bibliothique  Univcrselle.     Juillet  et  Aoi^t,  1880. 
Bertram.     DePolitiaJudaica  tain  civ.  quam  eccles.     Leyden,  1651. 
Bertsch.     Gesch.  des  Alien  Bundes  71.  Volkes.      Stuttg.,  1857. 
Bible  Myths  ajid  Parallels  in  other  Religions.     New  York.  1883. 
Biblia  Polyglotta  Complut.,    15 17;  Antwerp   (Regia),   1572;  Paris, 

1645  ;  Lond.,  1657. 
Biblical  Archaeology,  Trans,  of  Soc.  of.  Lond.,  since  1872. 
Bellinger.     Disputatio  de  Cidtu  Dei  Rationali.     Frankf.,  1731. 
Belfinger.     Notae  in  Spinosae  Methodum  explicandi  Script.     Ibid. 
Binnie.      Proposed  Reconstruction  of  Old  Test.  History.     3d  ed. 

Edinb.,  1880. 
Birks.     Difficulties  of  Belief  as  to  Creation,  €iz.     Lond.,  1855. 
Birks.     Bible  and  Modern  Thought.     Ibid.,  1862. 
Birks.     Superfiatural  Revelation.     Ibid.,  1879. 
Birks.     Pentateuch  and  its  Anatofnists.     Ibid.,  1869. 
Birks.     Exodus  of  Israel.     Ibid.,  \%(i\. 

Bissell,  A.  P.  Law  of  Asylum  in  Is.  Hist.  Considered.  Leipz.,  1884. 
Bissell,  E.  C.  The  Historic  Origin  of  the  Bible.  New  York,  1874. 
Bixby.      "Religious  Genius  of  the  Races."     Unitar.   Rev.,  July, 

Aug.,  1883. 
Blackie.     "  Mos.  Acc't  of  Creation  compared  with  Heathen  Mythol." 

Good  Words,  Oct.,  1861. 
Blake.     "  The  Bible  and  its  Critics."     Cong.  Quarterly,  xi.  528. 
Blau.     "  Der  Dekalog  in.  einer  Samar.  Inschrift  aus  d.  Tempel  d. 

Garizim."     Zeitsch.  d.  Deut.  Morg.   Gesellschaft,  xiii.  p    275. 
Blayney.     Pentateuchus  Hebr.  Samar  it  anus.     Oxford,  1790. 


Literature  of  the  Pentateuch.  41 5 

Bleek.     Brief  an   d.  Hebriier.      2   Bde.      Berlin,    1840.     Ed.    by 

Windrath,  Elberfeld,  1868. 
Bleek.     "  Beitrage   zu  den   Forschungen   ueber   den    Pentateuch." 

Stud.  u.  Kiitkcii,  1 83 1,  p.  488. 
Bleek.     "  Aphoristische  Beitrage  zu  den  Untersuchungen  ueber  den 

Pentateuch.'-  Ros&nmWWuf?,  Biblisch-Exegetisches  Repert.,  1822. 
Bleek.     Einleitiing  in  d.  Alte  Testament.     4te  Aufl.  bearbeitet  von 

Wellhausen,   Berlin,    1878.     Eng.   trans,   from   2d    Germ.    ed. 

2  vols..  Lend.,  i86g. 
Bleek.     De  Libri  Genes  cos  Originc  at  que  Indole  Hist  or.   Observa- 

tiones.     Bonn,  1836. 
Bloch.      Studien   zur    Geschichte  d.   Sammlung  d.    Alt.   Hcbr'd. 

Literatur.     2te  Aufl.,  Wien,  1882. 
Bloch.      "Wellhausen    liber  d.    Alter    d.     Priestergesetzbuches." 

Jud.  Literat7trbl.     Nos.  15,  16,41,  42,  etc.,  1879. 
Blunt,  H.     Exposition  of  tlie  rentatcuch.     New  ed.,  Lond.,  i860. 
Blunt,  J.  H.     Annotated  Bible.     Gen.-Esth.     Lond.,  1878. 
Blunt,  J.  J.     Undesigned  Coincidences  in  Old  and  New  Testaments. 

9th  ed.     Lond.,  1869. 
Blunt,  J.  J.     Principles  for  Proper  Understanding  of  the  Mos. 

Writings.     Lond.,  1883. 
Boardman.     "Genesis  of  Sin"  (Gen.  iii.).     Princeton  Rev.,  July, 

1880. 
Bodenheimer.     Der  Segen  Mosis.     Crefeld,  i860. 
Bohl.     Zum  Gesetz  u.  znm  Zeugniss.     Wien,  1883. 
Bbhme.     Erklar7ingemieber  d.  Erste  Buck  Mosis.     1623. 
Bohmer.     Das  Erste  Buck  d.  Thora.     Halle,  1862. 
Bbhmer.     Liber  Genesis  Pentateucliicus.     Ibid.,  id>6o. 
Bohlen.     D.  Gen.  Historisch-Icrit.  erldutert.     Kbnigsberg,  1835. 
Bonar.     Com.  on  Leviticus.     5th  ed.,  Lond.,  1875. 
Bonfr^re.     Com.  in  Pentateiichum.     Antw.,  1625. 
Bonfr^re.     Com.  in  Jos.,  Judg.,  et  Ruth.     Paris,  163 1. 
Bonnet.     Les  Dtcouvertes  Assyriennes    et  le  Livre  de  la  Gendsc. 

Paris,  1884. 
Borrhaus.     Com.  in  Pentateuchnm.     Basel,  1557. 
Bosanquet.     Expos,  of  the  First  Tuoenty  Chaps,  of  Exodus.     Lond., 

1876. 
Boscawen.     "Bab.  Creation  Legends."     Acade?ny,  July  27,   1878. 
Bouch^-Leclercq.      Histoire  de   la    Divination    dans    VAntiquiti. 

4  vols.     Paris,  1882. 
Bovet.     Egypt,  Palestine,  and  Pha;nicia.    Lond.,  1882.    N.  Y.,  1883. 
Boyce.     Tlie  Higher  Criticism  and  t tie  Bible.     Lond.,  1880. 
Bramesfeld.     Der  Alttest.  Gottesdienst,  etc.     Glitersloh,  1864. 
Brandis.      Historischer   Gewinn  aiis  der  Entzifferung  d.  Assyr. 

Inschriften.     Berlin,  1856. 
Brandt.      "Die   Assyrisch- Babylon.       Keilschrift   Literatur   u.    d. 

Alt.  Test."     Deutsch.  Ev.  lUdtter  (1884),  ix.  3. 
Braun.      De    Vestibus  Sacerdotuin   Hebrceorum.      Leyden,     1680. 

Amsterdam,  1698,  1701. 
Braun.     "  Aelteste.  Bibl.  Sagen."     Ausland,  1861. 


41 6       TJie  Pe7itateuch:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Braun.     Nat ur gesch.  der  Sage.     Munchen,  1864-65. 
Bredenkamp.     "  Zu  Gen.  xx.  17,  18."    Zeitsch.  f.  Kirch.  Wiss.  u. 

Kircliliches  Leben,  1882,  p.  671. 
Bredenkamp.     Gesetz  tind  Propheteti.     Erlangen,  1881. 
Brerewood.     Diversity  of  Languages  and  Relig.     Lond.,  1614  fF. 
Briggs.     "  A  Critical  Study  of  the  History  of  the  Higher  Criticism." 

Presbyt.  Rev.,  Jan.,  1883. 
Briggs.     "  The  Little  Book  of  the  Covenant."     Hebrew  Student, 

May,  1883. 
Briggs.     "  The  Greater  Book  of  the  Covenant."     /<^/V/.,  June,  1883. 
Briggs.     "The  Hebrew  Poem  of  Creation."     Old  Test.  Student, 

April,  1884. 
Briggs.     Biblical  Study.     New  York,  1883. 
Briggs.     "  Right,  Duty,  and  Limits  of  Biblical  Criticism."    Presbyt. 

Rev.,  1881,  p.  551. 
Briggs.     "  The  Argument  e  Silentio.''''     Journ.  of  Soc.  of  Bib.  Lit. 

atid  Exegesis.     January-June,  1884. 
Brightwell.     Notes  on  the  Pentateuch.     Lond.,  1840. 
Brill.      Bijbelstudien.      Vol.    L  has    studies    on    the    Pentateuch. 

Leyden,  1876. 
Broadley.     Lnternal  Evidence  of  the  Religion  of  Moses.     1805. 
Brown,  F.     Assyriology :  its  Use  and  Abuse  in  Old  Test.  Study. 

New  York,  1885. 
Brown,  F.     "  New  Testament  Witness  to  the  Authorship  of  Old 

Testament  Books."     Journ.  of  Soc.  of  Bib.  Lit.  and  Exegesis, 

July-December,  1882. 
Brown,  F.     "  The  Books  of  Chronicles  with  special  Reference  to 

those  of  Samuel."     Andover  Rev.,  April,  1884. 
Brown,  R.     "The  Archaic  Solar-Cult  of  Egypt."     Theol.  Review, 

October,  1878. 
Brown,  W.     The   Tabernacle:  its  Priests  and  LJ:vites.     2d.   ed. 

Edinburgh,  1872. 
Brown,  W.     Antiquity  of  the  Jews.     Lond.,  1820. 
Browne,  E.  H.     Pent,  and  Elohistic  Psahns.     Lond.,  1863. 
Browne,  H.     Hatidb.  of  Hebrew  Antiquities.     Lond.,  1852. 
Bruce.     The  Chief  End  of  Revelation.     Lond.  and  N.  Y.,  1881. 
Brugsch.     Bibelund  Denknialer.     Leipz.,  1875. 
Brugsch.     Gesch.  yEgyptens  luiter  d.  Pharaonen.     Leipz.,  1877. 
Brugsch.      A   History   of    Egypt  under  the  Pharaohs.      2d   ed. 

Lond.,  1 88 1. 
Brugsch.     Religion  u.  Mythologie  d.  alten  ^gypter.     Erste  Halfte, 

Leipz.,  1884. 
Brugsch.      Der  Bau   d.    Tempels   Salomo''s   tiach   der  Koptischen 

Bibelversion.     Leipz.,  1877.  ^ 

Brugsch.     DExode  et  les  Monuments  Egyptiens.     Leipz.,  1875. 
Brugsch.     "  Pithom   u.   Ramses."  Deutsche  Revue.     Marz,    1884. 
Briill.     Das  Samar.   Targtim  ztun  Pentateuch.     Frankf.,  1873-75. 
Bruns.      "  Sagen  von   d.    Entstehung  d.    Menschengeschlechts." 

Neues  Repertoriutn  f.  Bibl.  u.  Morg.  Lit.     Th.  2,  p.  197. 
Bruston.     L^s  Inscriptions  Assyr.  et  VAncien  Test.     Paris,    1873. 


Literature  of  the  Pcntateiicli.  417 

Bruston.     Histoire  Critique  de  la  Lit.  Prophttique.     Paris,  1881. 
Bruston.     "  Les   deux  J^hovistes."     Rev.  de    Theol  et   de   Philos. 

Janv  ,  1885. 
Bruston.      "  Le   Document  Elohiste    et    son   Antiquity."     Revue 

Thtologiqiie  (de  Montauban),  1882,  p.  13,  97. 
Bruston.     "  Les  quatre  Sources  des  Lois  de  I'Exode."      Rev.    de 

Thtol.et  de  Philos.     Juill.,  1883. 
Bryant.     The  Plagues  inflicted  upo)i  the  Egyptians.     2d  ed.,  Lond., 

1810. 
Budde.     Die  Biblische  Urgeschichte.     Giessen,  1883. 
Budde.     "  Seth  u.  die  Sethiten.     Eine  Berichtigung."     Zeitschrift 

f.  Alttest.  Wissenschaft,  1884,  p.  298. 
Budde.     "  Genesis  48,  7  u.  die  benachbarten  Abschnitte."     Ibid., 

1883,  p.  56. 
Buddeus.     Htstoria  Ecclcstastica  V.  T.     Halle,  1715  fF. 
Buddeus.       l)itroductio    ad   Philosophiain    Ebraeoriitn.        Halle, 

1702,   1720. 
Buddensieg.     "  Ueber  eine  Vormosaische  Sintflutliversion."    Jahr- 

b'l'icher  f.  Dent.  Theologie,  1873. 
Budge  and  Sayce.     Babylonian  Life  and  History.     Lond.  Relig. 

Tract  Soc,  1884. 
BUdinger.     Egypt.  Einwirkunge?!.   anf  Hebriiische   Culte.      Wien, 

1873- 
Bulil.     "  Wann   ist  das   Fiinfte  Bucli    Mose   Abgefasst  worden"? 

Theol.  Tidskr.     Kjobii.,  1878. 
Bunsen.     Gott  in  dcr  Gesduchte.     Leipz.,  1858. 
Bunsen.     Egypfs  Place  in  Universal  History  (trans,   by  Cotterill 

witli  addit.  by  Birch).     5  vols.     Lond.,  1848-67. 
Bunsen.      ALgyptens    Stelle  in   dcr    Wcltgeschichte.      Vols,  i.-iii. 

Hamb.,  1845;  vols,  iv.,  v.,  Gotha,  1856-57. 
Bunsen.       Vollstandiges   Bibclwerk  fur    die    Gemeinde.       9  Bde. 

Leipz.,  1858-70. 
Burder.     The  Scripture  Commentary.     Lond.,  1809. 
BUrger.     Der  Talmud  ti.  d.  Pei'fectibilitiit  des  Mosaisnius  v.  Stand- 

punkte  d.  Reform  bclcucJitet.     Pesth,  1849. 
Bush,  C.     Notes  on  Genesis.     26th  ed.,  2  vols.     New  York,  1859. 
Bush,  C.     Notes  on  Exodus.     2  vols,     /bid.,  i?>^6. 
Bush,  C.     Notes  on  Leviticus,     /bid.,  iS^y. 
Bush,  C.     No/ cs  on  Numbers.     //;/<•/.,  1863. 
Bush,  C.     Notes  on  Josliua.     2d.  ed.     //;/V/.,  1862. 
Bush,  R.  W.     Popular  /ntrod.  to  the  Pentateuch.     Lend.,  1883. 
Buttmann.     Mythos  der  SYmdfluth.     2te  Aufl.     Berlin,  1819. 
Buxtorf.     De  I\uitifice  iMaximo  Hcbraeorum.     Basel,  1685. 
Bynaeus.     De  Calceis  Hebraeorum.     Lib.  duo.     Dort,  1694. 
Cabell.     Test  i7>iony  of  Mod.  Science  to  Unity  of  I\/ankind.     2d  ed. 

Boston,  1859. 
Cajetan.     Comment,  in  Pentateuchum,  etc.     Paris,  1539,  1543. 
Calmet^    Dissertationes  qui  peuvent    scrvir    de    ProUgotnhies  d 

VEcriture  Sainte.     Paris,  1720. 
Calov.     Criticus  Sacer.  Piblicus  de  Sacrae  Scripturae  Auctoritate. 

Wittenberg,   i643fr. 


41 8       TJie  PentateucJi :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Calvin.     Com.  on  JosJma.     Lond.,  1578. 

Calvin.     In  Quinqtie  Libros  Mosis  Com.     Lond.,  1595- 

Calvin.     In  Librum  Geneseos  Com.    Ed.  bv  Hengstenberg.    Berlin, 

1838. 
Calvin.     Book  of  Moses  catted  Genesis.     Trans,  by  King.     Edinb., 

1847-50. 
Candlish.     Authority    of    Scripture     Independent     of    Crtttctsm. 

Edinb.,  1877. 
Candlish.     Contrib.  to  Exposition  of  Book    of    Genesis.      2    vols. 

Edinb.,  1853. 
Cardall.     IsraeVs  yourneyings  in  the  Wilderness .     Lond.,  1848. 
Carlstadt.     De  Scripturis  Canonicis  Libellus.     Wittenberg,  1521. 
Carpenter.     "Deuteronomy."     Modern  Rev.,  K^xW,  iZ'^y 
Carpenter.     "  The  Book  of  Judges."     Modern  Rev.,  ]\!\y,  \^^2>- 
Carpenter.     "  Through  the  Prophets  to  the  Law."     Modern  Rev., 

Jan.,  1884. 
Carpzov.     Introductio  ad  Libros  Canonicos  Bibliorum  V.  T.  Omnes. 

Leipz.,  I7i4-2ifr. 
Carpzov.     Critica Sacra  V.  T.     Leipz.,  1728,  1748. 
Carrau.     DOrigine  des  Ctdtes  Primitifs.     Rev.  des  Deux  Mondes, 

Avril,  1876. 
Carriere.     "  BegrifF,     Ursprung,     u.    Entwickelung     d.    Mythus." 

Zeitsch .  f.  Philos .  i . ,  1 862 . 
Carriere.     Les  Origines  du  Texte  Masorcthique  de  VAncien  Testa- 
ment.    Examen   Critique   d'une    R6cente    Hypoth^se   par   A. 

Kuenen.     Paris,  1875. 
Cartwright.     Annotatio7ies  in  Genesin.     Lond.,  1648. 
Cary.     "  The  Bible  and  Criticism."     Unit.  Rev.  xvi.  425. 
Caspari.     "  Gesch.  Sabbathsjahre."     Stud.  u.  Kritiken.  i.     1877. 
Castalio.     Books  of  Mos.  in  Latin  Prose,  with  Notes.     1546. 
Castell.     Animadv.  in  Pentat.  Samariticuin.     Lond.,  1660. 
Cave.     "Evolution  and  the  Hebrews."     Ev.  Review.,  ]2in.,  1881. 
Cave.     Scriptural  Doctrine  of  Sacrifice.     Edinb.,  1877. 
Cellarius.     Exxerpta  Pentat.  Satnar.   Vers.   Cum  Lat.  Interpret., 

etc.     Jena,  1705. 
Cecil.     Element.  Relig.    Truths  from  the  Five  Books   of  Moses. 

Lond.,  1881. 
Cell^rier.     Esprit  de  la  L&gisl.  Mosdique.     Paris  et  Geneve,  1837. 
Cell^rier.     Introd.  a  la  Lecture  des  Livres  Saints.     Geneve,  1832. 
Celldrier.     DeTOrigine  Authcntique  et  Divine  de  VAncien   Testa- 

7nent.     Geneve  et  Paris,  1826. 
Ceriani.     Translatio  Syra  Pescitto  Vet.  Test,  ex  Codice  Ambrosiano. 

Sec.  fere  vi.     Milan,  1876  fif. 
Ceriani.     Monumenta  Sacra  et  Profana    (vol.    ii.     Milan,    1868, 

pp.  1-344,   contains  a  fragment  of  Genesis  and  Ex.  i.-xxxiii.  2, 

according  to  tlie  text  of  two  mss.  of  the  British  Museum) . 
Chaie.     Handb.  d.  Israelii.  Ritualgesetze.     Konigsb.,  1847. 
Challis.     Creation  in  Plan  and  in  Progress.     Lond.,  186 1. 
Chambers.     "  The  Theory  of  Professor  Kuenen."     Presbyt.  Rev., 

1880,  p.  304. 


Literature  of  the  Pejttaieuch.  419 

Chambrun  de  Rosemont.     Essai  d''un  Commentaire  Scientifique  de 

la  Gen^se.     Paris,  1883. 
Chandler.      Vindication    of  the    History    of  the   Old    Testament. 

Lond.,  1741. 
Chamberlain.     Plain  Reply  to  Colenso.     Lond.,  1863. 
Chareney.     "  Fragments  sur  la  Symbolique  H^braique."     Rev.de 

Lingieistique.     Avril,  1869. 
Charleville.     "  Les    Sections   du    Pentateuque,    etc."       Rev.    des 

Etudes  Jtiives. 
Chester.     "Notes    on    the    Topography    of    the   Exodus."     Pal. 

Explor.  Fund  (Quarterly,  1880,  p.  231  ;   1881,  p.  104. 
Cheyne.     "  Recent  Advances  in  Bib.  Criticism."     Old  Test.  Stu- 
dent, Oct.,  1884  (reprinted  from  Cjiardian). 
Clant.     Dissert,  de  Labro  Tabernaadi,  etc.     Groningen,  1733. 
Clark.     Israel  in  Egypt.     New  York,  1874. 
Clark.     Fundamental  Questions   (on  Genesis,  etc.).     New  York, 

1882. 
Clarke.     Ten  Great  Religions.     Part  2,  Boston,  1883. 
Clarkson.     Antedil.  and  Patriarchal  Researches.     Lond.,  1836. 
Clayton.     Vindicat.  of  Histories  of  O.  and  N.  Tests.     Lond.,  1751. 
Clemens.     Dissert  alio  de  Labro  Aeneo  a  Mose  in  Tabernaculi  Atrio 

Collocato.     Groningen,   1732. 
Clement  (d.  1793).     Sur  VOrigine  de  Pent.  d.  Samaritans. 
Cock.     (Lat.  Cocceius.)   Considerationes  ad  ultima Mosis.  Frankf., 

1650. 
Cockburn.     Credibil.  of  Jewish  Exodus  Defended.     1809. 
Codex  Alexandrinus  (a  facsimile  executed  for  the  Brit.   Museum). 

4  vols.     Lond.,  1879-84. 
Cohen.      Historisch-kritische    Darstellung   d.    J'udischen    Gottes- 

dienstes,  etc.     Leipz.,  1819. 
Coke.     Creeds  of  the  Day.     Vol.  i.     The  Old  Test.     Lond.,   1883. 
Colin.     Lehrb.   d.     Vorchristlichen     Religionsgeschichte.      Lemgo, 

1853- 
Coleridge.     Misc.  Dissertations  on  Chaps,  xvii.,  xviii.   of  fudges. 

Lond.,  1768. 
Colenso.      IVellhausen  on  Cotnpos.  of  Hexateuch.     Lond.,  1878. 
Colenso.     Lectures   on   the   Pentateuch    and   the    Moabite    Stotie. 

Lond.,   1873. 
Colenso.      The  New  Bible  Com.  Examined.     Lond.,  1871. 
Colenso.     The  Pentateuch  and  Rook  of  Joshua.     6  vols.     Lond., 

1862-79. 
"  Colenso  on  Joshua."     Boston  Rev.,  iii.  190. 
Colenso,  Rationalism  ift  Works  of .     Lond.,  1863. 
Colenso  on  the  Horns  of  a  Dilcm/na.     Lond.,  1863. 
Colet.     Mos.  Account  of  Creation.     Ed.  by  Lupton.     Lond.,  1876. 
Commentary    Wholly   Biblical,    The.      3   vols.      Lond.    and   New 

York,  1868. 
Comtncntary,  The  Pulpit.     Edited  by  Spence  and  Exell.       Genesis. 

Introductions    by    Farrar,    Cotterill,    Whitelaw ;    Expos,    and 

Homiletics  by  Whitelaw.     Exodus.  Expos,  and   Homilet.  by 


420       The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

George  Rawlinson.  Leviticus.  Introd.  by  Collins  and  Cave ; 
Expos.,  etc.,  by  Meyrick.  Numbers.  Introd.  by  Whitelaw; 
Expos.,  etc.,  Winterbotham.  Deuteronovty .  Expos,  by 
Alexander;  Horn,  by  Clemance.     Lond.  and  New  York. 

Commefitary,  An  Old  Test.  Edited  by  Ellicott.  Genesis,  R. 
Payne  Smith.  Exodus,  George  Rawlinson.  Leviticus,  Gins- 
burg.  Numbers,  Elliott.  Deuteronomy,  Walker.  Lond.  and 
New  York. 

Commentary,  The  Bible.  Edited  by  Cook.  Introd.  to  Pentateuch, 
Browne.  Genesis,  "  Bishop  of  Ely."  Exodus,  Cook  and 
Clark.  Leviticus,  Clark.  Numbers.  Introd.  by  Espin ;  Com. 
by  Espin  and  Thrupp.  Deuteronomy,  Espin.  Lond.  and 
New  York,  1872  ff. 

Comtnentary  on  the  Holy  Scriptures,  Critical,  Doctrinal,  and 
Homiletical.  A  Trans,  of  Lange's  Bibelwerk  with  enlarge- 
ments under  the  editorial  supervision  of  Philip  SchafF  (New 
York,  1867-82).  ThQ  Book  of  Genesis  vidiS  trans,  and  ed.  by 
Tayler  Lewis  and  A.  Gosman ;  Exodus,  by  Mead ;  Leviticus, 
by  Gardiner  with  an  Introd.  by  Osgood ;  Nufnbers,  by  Lowrie 
and  Gosman  ;  Deuteronomy,  by  Gosman. 

Conant.     Genesis  with  Notes.     New  York,  1868. 

Conant.  "  History  and  Methods  of  Modern  Bib.  Crit."  Proceed- 
ings of  Second  An.  Baptist  Conference,  Boston,  1883. 

Conder,  C.  R.     Handbook  to  the  Bible.     London  and  New  York. 

Conder,  E.  R.  Origin  of  the  Hebrew  Religion.  Lond.  Relig. 
Tract  Soc. 

Conradi.     Tabernaculi  Structura  et  Figura.     Hanau,  1621. 

"  Contribution  to  the  Criticism  of  Gen."  Ain,  Israelite,  Nov.  7, 
1884. 

Cook.     Origins  of  Religion  and  Language.     Lond.,  1884. 

Cooper.  An  Archaic  Dictionary ;  Biographical,  Historical,  and 
Mythological ,  from  the  Egypt.,  Assyr.,  and  Etruscati  Monu- 
ments and  Papyri.     Lond.,  1876. 

Cooper.     The  Pentateuch  and  Egypt.     Lond.,  1875. 

Corrodi.  Brief e  einiger  Holldtidischer  Gottesgelehrten  7ieber  Simon'' s 
Kritische  Geschichte  d.  Alt.  Test,  herausg.  v.  Le  Clerc,  Uebers. 
mit  Anmerkungen  ze.  Zusdtzen.     2  Bde.     1799. 

Corrodi.  Versuch  einer  Beleuchtung  d.  Geschichte  d.  Judischen 
Bibelkanons.     Halle,  1792. 

Corrodi.  Beitrdge  zur  Beforderung  des  vernunft.  Denkens  (Heft 
iv.  p.  104  ff.  treats  of  the  documents  of  the  Pentateuch). 
Winterthur,  1780,  1801. 

Cosquin.  "  Les  Monuments  Assyriens  et  la  Bible."  Questions 
Controversies  deVHistoire.     2^  S6rie.     188 1. 

Cotterill.  Does  Science  aid  Faith  in  regard  to  Creation  ?  New 
York,  1884. 

Cowles.  The  Pentateuch  in  its  Progressive  Revelations  of  God  to 
Men.     New  York,  1874. 

Cowles.     Hebrew  History.     Ibid.,  1875. 

Cox.     "Adam's  Gospel"  (Gen.  iii.  14  f.).    Exposit»r,]2in..,  1884. 


Literature  of  the  Pentateuch.  421 

Cozza.     Biblior  117)1  Sacrorum  Groecus  Codex  Vaticanus  .  .  .  Collatis 
Studiis  C.  Vercelloni  et  Jos .  Cozza.     Rome,  1869-81. 

Crafts.     Must  the  Old  Test.  Go?    New  York,  1883. 

Cramer.     De  Moloclio.     VVittenb.,  1720. 

Crawford.       Patriarchal    Dynasties    from    Adam    to    Abraham. 
Richmond,  1877. 

Craven.     Biblical  Chronology .     2d  ed.     Boston,  1876. 

"  Credibility  of  Pentateuch."     Christian  Observer,  Ixiv.  517. 

Credner.     Beitrage z.  Einleit.in  d.  Bibl.  Schriftefi.     Halle,  1832. 

Creuzer.     "Beitrage  zur  Judischen  Geschichte."     Stud.  u.  Kriti- 
ken,  1850,  1853. 

Critici  Sacri.     9  vols.     Lond.,  1660;  Amst.,  1698;  Frankf.,  1696. 

"  Crito."     The  Song  of  Moses,  Qic.     Lond.,  1782. 

Crosby.     Expos.  Notes  on  Joshna.     New  York,  1875. 

Crosby.     "  The  Authorship  of  the  Pentateuch."     The  Indepetident, 
Feb.  I,  1883. 

Cross.     Hints  to  Eng.  Readers  of  the  Old  Test.     Lond.,  1882. 

Crosskey.     "  Recent  Defences  of  the  Mosaic  Cosmogony."  Modern 
Rev.,  Oct.,  1883,  p.  675. 

Cumming.     Moses  Right  and  Bp.  Colettso  Wrong.     Lond.,   1863. 

Cunaeus.     De  Republica  Hebraeortim.     Leyden,  1617. 

Currey.     Hist,  of  Is.  as  preparing  for  the  Gospel.     Hulsean  Lect. 
Camb.,  1851-52. 

Curtiss.     "  Present  State  of  O.  Test.   Studies."     Current  Discus- 
sions in  Theology,  Chicago,  1883. 

Curtiss.     "  History  of  Israel."     /^/V/.,  1884. 

Curtiss.     "  Papers  on  the  Lang,  and  Lit.  of  Israel."     The  Advance, 
1883,  Jan.  and  Feb. 

Curtiss.     "  Sketches  of  Pentateuch   Criticism."     Bibliotheca   Sac, 
Jan.  and  Oct.,  1884. 

Curtiss.     De  Aaronitici  Sacerdotii  at  que  Thoroe  Elohisticae  Origine. 
Leipz.,  1878. 

Curtiss.     "  Delitzsch  on  the  Origin  and  Composition  of  the  Penta- 
teuch."    Presbyt.  Rev.,  July,  1882. 

Curtiss.     The  Levitical  Priests.     Edinb.,  1877. 

Cyril  (of  Alex.).     Com>n.i7t  Pent.,  Greece  etLatine.     Antw.,  1618. 

Da  Costa.     Israel u.  die  V'olker.     Frankf.,  1855. 

Dahler.     De  Librorum  Paraleipom.  Auctoritate.     Strasb.,  1819. 

Dale.     De  Of-igitieet  Progressu  Idololatrice.     1696. 

Danglar.     Les  Semites  et  le  Shnitisme.     Paris,  1882. 

Danz.     De  Eesto  yud.  Septimanaru?n,  Qic.     Jena,  17 15-18. 

Darmsteter.      Die  Philosophie    d.    Gesch.    d.    J'udischen     Volkes. 
Wien,  1884. 

Darwin.     Descent  of  Man.     New  ed.     Lond.,  1880. 

Dassov.     Scholia  Criticoriim  in  Levit .     Kiel,  1707. 

Dassov.      Dissert,     de     Suspendio     Hominis     Lapidibus    Obruti. 
Wittenb.,  1694. 

Datema.     De  Dekaloog.     Utrecht,  1876. 

Dathe.     Pentateuchus  ex Recetisione  I'e.xius  Hebra'i.     Leipz.,  179 1. 

Dathe.    Libri  Historici  V.  T.     Halle,  1784. 


422        The  PentateucJi:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Daumer.     Entwendmig d .  yEgyp.  Eigenthums.     Nurnb.,  1833. 
Daumer.       Der    Feuer-und    Moloch-dienst    der    Alien    Hebrder, 

Braunschweig,  1842. 
Davidson,  J.     The  Pentateuch  and  Hebrews.     Edinb.,  1877. 
Davidson,  P.     Pentatench  Vindicated.     Lond.,  1863. 
Davidson,  S.     A  Treatise  on  Bib.  Criticism.     Lond.,  1855. 
Davidson,  S.     Introd.  to  the  Old  Test.     3  vols.     Lond.,  1862-63. 
Davison.     Primitive  Sacrifice.     An  Itiqidry.     Lond.,  1825. 
Davidson.     Origin  of  the  World.     New  York  (without  date). 
Dawson.     Story  of  the  Earth  and  Man.     New  York  (without  date). 
Dawson.     The  Dawn  of  Life.     Lond.,  1875. 
Dawson.     P'ossil  Men  and  their  Modern  Representatives .     Lond., 

1880. 
Dawson.     Nature  and  the  Bible.     New  York,  1875. 
Dawson.      "  Antiq.  of  Man  and  Origin   of  Species."      Princeton 

Rev.,  Nov.,  1880. 
Dawson.     Studies  of  the  Costnogony ,  etc.,  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 

Montreal  and  Lond.,  i860. 
Day.     The  Five  Books  of  Moses.     Lond.,  1549. 
Deane.     "The  Septuagint  Additions  to  the  Heb.  Text."  Expositor, 

Aug.,  Sept.,  1884. 
De    Broglie.     •'  L'Origine   de  la   Religion."     Contemporain,  Juin. 

1883. 
De  Brossis.     Du  Cidtu  de  Dieux  fetiches.     Paris,  1760. 
DeGeer.     Disserfatio  liiauguralis  de  Bileamo.     Leyden,  1816. 
Deicke.      Ueber  d.  S'undfluth.     Vortrag.     Gallen,   1861. 
DeLavaur.     Confer,  de  la  Fable  avec  PHist.  Sainte.     Paris,  1730. 
Delbrlick.     "  Verhaltniss  zwischen  Relig.  u.  Mythologie.     Zeitsch. 

f.  Volkerpsychol.,  1865,  p.  487. 
Delff.     Grundz'uge  der   Entwickelungsgesch.  d.   Religion.     Leipz., 

1883. 
Delitzsch,  Franz.     "  Die  neue  Mode  d.  Herleitung  des  Gottesna- 

mens  [Jehovah]."     Zeitsch. f.  Luther.  Theologie,  1877,  iv. 
Delitzsch,  Franz.     "  Der  Esra   d.    Ueberlieferung  u.    d.    Esra  d. 

neuesten  Pentateuchkritik."     Zeitsch.  f.  Luther.  Theologie,  etc., 

1877,  p.  445. 
Delitzsch,  Franz.     "  Ueber  den  Jahve-Namen."    Zeitsch.  f.  Alttest. 

Wisse7ichaft,  1883  (2)  ;   1884  (i). 
Delitzsch,  Franz.     "  Priester  Segen."     Zeitsch.  f.  Kirch.   Wiss.ti. 

Kirchlichcs  Leben,  1882,  p.  113. 
Delitzsch,  Franz.     Com.  i'tber  d.  Genesis.     4te  Aufl.     Leipz.,  1882. 
Delitzsch,    Franz.       "  Pentateuch-kritische    Studien."      Zeitsch  f. 

Kirch.    IViss.    11.    Kirchliches    Leben,    1880.       This   series    of 

articles  continued  through  the  year,  and  under  the  title  "  Urmo- 

saisches"  into  the  year  1881. 
Delitzsch,    Franz.       Co/n.    zum    Hebr'derbrief    (illustrating    Mos. 

system  of  sacrifices).     Leipz.,  1857. 
Delitzsch,  Franz.     Bibl.   Commentar  i'lber  die  Psalmen.     3te  Aufl.. 

Leipz.,  1873;  4te  Aufl.  (revised),  1884. 
Delitzsch,  Franz.     See  Baer.     See  also  KeiL 


Literature  of  the  Pentateuch.  423 

Delitzsch,  Fried.     Wo  Lag  das  Paradies?     Leipz.,  1881. 

Delrius.     Glossae  in  Genesin.     Leyden,  1608. 

Deuison.     Antiquity  of  Man.     Lond.,  1865. 

Denio.     "  Present  Outlook  of  Old  Test.  Study."     New  Englander, 

1883,  p.  643. 
Derenbourg.     "  Encore  c^uelques  Mots  sur  les  Sections  du  Penta- 

teuque."    Rev.  des  Etudes,  Juin,  Sept.,  1883. 
De  Rossi.     Scholia  Critica  in   Vet,  Test.  Libros  (supplement  to  the 

work  entitled  Variae Lectiones,  etc.).    Parma,  1798. 
De  Rothschild.     Hist,  and  Lit.  of  the  Israelites.     Lond.,  1871. 
Der   Urspr'utigliche  Entwickeh/ngsgang  d.  Religioscn  u.  Sittlichen 

Bildung der  IVclt  (anonymous).     Greifswald,  1829. 
De  Saporta.     "  Prehistoric  Archaeology."     Pop.  Scietitific  Monthly, 

Sept.  and  Oct.,  1883. 
De  Smedt.    Principles  de  la  Critique Historiq^ie.    Liege:  Soc.  Bibl. 

Beige,  1883, 
Deuteronomy,  Notes  on.     Vol.  IL     Lond.,  1882. 
"  Deuteronomy  as  the  Production  of  Moses."     Joiir.  of  Sac.  Lit., 

XX.  313. 
"  Deuteronomy,  the  Book  and  its  Critics."     Church  Quart.  Review, 

Oct.,  1877. 
De  Wette.     Vorles.  uber  die  Religion  ihr  Wesen,  etc.    Berlin,  1827. 
De  Wette.     Die  Heilige  Schrift  d.  A.  u.  N.  Tests.  Uebersetzt.     2te 

Aufl.     Heidelb.,  1831,  1832. 

De  Wette.   LeJirb.  d.  Historisch-KritischenEinleitung  in  d.  Kanon. 

u,  Apok.  Bi'icher  d.  Alt.  Test.     8te  Aufl.,  neu  bearbeitet  von 

Schrader.     Berlin,  1869. 

De  Wette.     Review  of  Vatke's  Religion  d.  A.   T.   George''s  D.  aelt. 

J'lidis.  Feste  and  v.  Bohlen's  Genesis.    Stud.  u.  Kritiken,  1837. 

De  Wette.     EOrigine  Authentique  et  Divine  de  VAncien  Testainent. 

Geneve  et  Paris,  1826. 
De   Wette.      Dissertatio   Critico-exegetica   qua   Deuterononiiuin   a 
Prioribus    Pentateuchi  Libris  Diversuni  alius    Cujusdam  Re- 
ce7ttioris  Auctoris  Opus  esse  Denionstratttr.     Jenae,  1805. 
De  Wette.      Lehrb.   d.  Hebrli.    fildischen  Archaologie.     4te   Aufl. 

(Rabiger).     Leipz.,  1864. 
Die  Chronologie  der  Genesis  ( i  Mosis)  im  Einklang  ?nit  der  Pro- 
fane n  (anonymous).     Regensburg,  1881. 
Diederichs.     Zur  Geschichte Simsons.     Getting.,  1778. 
Diemer.     Ge7i.  ti.  Ex.  n.  d.  Milstater  Handschrift.    Wien,  1862. 
Diestel.     Einfluss  d.    Aegypt.    Cidtur    aif.    Is.    2.   Zeit    Mosis. 

Vortrag.     Elberfeld,   i86r. 
Diestel.     "  Der  Monotheismus  des   jilteren    Heidenthums  vorziig- 

lich  bei  den  Semiten."     Jaiirb.  f.  Dcut .  TJieologic,  i860. 
Diestel.     Die  Sihidflicth  u.  die  Flidhsai^cn  d.  /lltcrthjwis.     Berlin, 

1872. 
Diestel.     Der  Segeyi  Jacobs,  Gen.  xlix.     Braunschweig,  1853. 
Diestel.     "  Stiftshlitte."     SchenkcFs  Bibel-Lex. 
Diestel.     "  Die  Religiosen  Delicte  im  Israelit.  Strafrecht."     Jahrb'ii- 
cher  f.  Prot.  Theologie,  1879,  ^^- 


424       The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Dillmann.     Urspr.  d.  Alltest.  Religion.  Acad.  Rede.   Giessen,  1865. 
Dillmann.     Die  Bilcher  Exodus  Jind  Leviticus  {Kiirzgefasstes  Exeget. 

Haiidb.').     Leipz.,  1880. 
Dillmann.     Die  Genesis  (^ibid.).     4te  Aufl.     Leipz.,  1882. 
Dillmann.     Biblia   V.  T.  ^thiop.     Bd.   i.,  Octateuchus.     Leipz., 

1853-55. 
Dillmann.     "  Ueber    d.     Kalenderswesen    d.    Israeliten  vor  dem 

Babylon.  Exil."  Monatsch.d.  K'dnig.  Acad.  d.  IViss.  zu  Berlin., 

Oct.  27,  1881. 
Dillmann.     "Ueber  die  Herkunft  d.  Urgeschichtlichen   Sagen  d. 

Hebraer."    Sitzungsbericht  d.  K.  Acad.  d.   Wiss.  zu  Berlin., 

April  27,  1882. 
Dillmann.     "  Ueber  Baal  mit  dem  Weiblichen  Artikel."      Ibid., 

June  16,  1881. 
Dillmann.     "  Bibeltext  des  Alten  Testaments."     Yitrzo^s  Encyk., 

2te  Aufl.,  ii.  p.  381. 
Dillmann.      "  Bildung    der    Sammlung    heiliger    Schriften   Alten 

Testaments."     Jahrb.f.  Deut.  Theol.   (1858),  p.  419. 
Dimock.     Notes  07i  Gen.,  Ex.,  etc.     Gloucester  (Eng.),  1804. 
Disraeli.     Genius  of  Judaism.     Lond.,  1833. 
Ditmar.     Geschichte  d.  Israeliten  if\^Q.yxv&).     Berlin,  1788. 
Dittmar.     Geschichte  der  Welt  mit  R'ucksicht  auf  die  Entwickelung 

des  Lebens  in  Religiofi,  etc.     4  Bde.     Heidelb.,  1847-51. 
Dods.     IsraeVs  Iron  Age.     4th  ed.     Lond.,  1880. 
Dods.     The  Book  of  Genesis.     Edinb.,  1882. 

Donnelly.     Atlantis :  t/ie  Antediluvian   World.     New  York,  1882. 
Doorninck.      Bijdrage  tot    de    Textkritiek  von   Richteren    i.-xvi. 

Leyden,  1879. 
Douglass.     The  Book  of  Joshua.     Lond.,  1882. 
Dozy.     Die  Israeliten  zu  Mekkav.  David^s  Zeit.     Haarl.,  1864. 
Drechsler.     Einleit  u.  Echtheit  d.  Genesis.     Hamb.,  1838. 
Drechsler.     Die    Unwissenschaftlichkeit    im     Gebiete    d.    Alttest. 

Kritik  (directed  against  Vatke  and  V.  Bohlen).     Leipz.,  1837. 
Drew.     Colenso''s  Exam,  of  Pent.  Examined.     Lond.,  1863. 
Drexellius.     JVoe  Architcctus  Arcae.     Munich,  1644. 
Driver.     "  On  some  Alleged  Linguistic  Affinities  of  the  Elohist." 

Jourtial  of  Philol.,  xi.  p.  201. 
Droysen.     Grundriss  der  Historik.     Leipz.,  1868. 
Drusius.     Ad  Loca  Difficiliora    Jostiae,    Judic,    et    Sam.     Com- 
ment arius.     Franeq.,  1618. 
Duff.     "  Structure   of  O.    Test.    Books."    Bibliotheca  Sac,    Oct., 

1880,  July,  1882. 
Duffield.     "  Evolutionism  respecting  Man  and  the  Bible."  Princeton 

Rev.,  Jan.,  1878. 
Duke.     Qiiestion  of  Incest  by  Marriage  with  Sisters  in  Succession. 

Lond.,  1882. 
Duncan.     Law  of  Moses  :  its  Char,  and  Design.     Lond.,  185 1. 
Duncker.      Geschichte  des  Alterthums.     5te  Aufl.     Leipz.,  1878. 
Duncker.     History  of  Antiquity.     6  vols.     Lond.,  1877-82. 
Dunlop.     "  The  Man  Moses."     Am.  Church  Rev.,  July,  1883. 


Literature  of  the  Pentateuch.  425 

Dunner.      "  Beleuchtung  einiger  Stellen  in  Exodus  iii."      Monat- 
schrift  f.  Gesch.  u.  IViss.  d.  Judenthums,   1870,  pp.  97,   145, 

193- 
Duns.     "  The  Serpent  of  Eden."     Bibliotheca  Sac,  xxi.  p.  163. 

Du  Pin.     Prolcgomencs  sur  la  Bible.     Paris,  1701. 

Dupuis.     Origine  de  tons  Ics  Cultcs.     12  vols.     Paris,  1796. 

Durell.     TheHcb.  Text  on  the  Parallel  Proph.  of  Jacob  and  Moses 

Relating  to  the  Twelve  Tribes.     Oxford,  1763. 
Dushak.     Gesch.    n.    Darstellnng  d.    Jud.     Cultus.      Mannlieim, 

1866. 
Dushak.     Das  Mosaisch-Talinudische  Strafrecht.     Wien,  1869. 
Dwiglit.     Tlie  Hebrew  Wife  (treats  of  marriage  with  a  deceased 

wife's  sister).     Lond.,  1836. 
Dwinell.     "  The  Prophets  of  Israel,"     Rev.  of  W.  R.  Smith's  book 

of  that  title.     Bibliotheca  Sac,  April,  1884,  p.  327. 
Ebers.     Dnrch  Gosen,ziim  Sinai.     2te  Aufl.     Leipz.,  1881. 
Ebert.     '' Zur  Angelsachsischen  Genesis."     Anglia,\.i. 
Ebrard.     "  Kritik."     Hftxzog's  Peiil-Enyr^k.     iste  Aufl. 
Ebrard.     Anfcinge  d.  Menscliengeschlechts.     Frankfurt,  1876. 
Eckard.     Ueberdie  Mosdische  Peligion,  tic.     Greifswald,  1787. 
Eckermann.     Lehrb.  d.  Religions-gescJiichte  n.  Mythologie.     2  Bde. 

Halle,  1854  f. 
Eckstein.     "  D.  Sitz  d.  Cultur  in  dcr  Urwelt."     Zeitscti.f.  V'olker- 

psychol.,  etc.,  i860,  p.  261. 
Edersheim.     Prophecy    and   Hisl.    in    Relation    to   tJie  Messiah. 

Lond.,  1885. 
Edersheim.     The  Exodus  and  the  Wanderings  in  the   IVilderness. 

Lond.  Relig.  Tract.  Soc. 
Edersheim.      World  before  the  Flood  and  Hist,  of  Patriarchs.     Ibid. 
Edersheim.     The  Laws  and  Polity  of  the  Jews.     Ibid. 
Edwards.      "Certain  Erroneous  Methods  and  Principles  in    Bib. 

Criticism."     Bibliotheca  Sac,  vi.  p.  185. 
Edwards.     "Authenticity   and    Genuineness   of  the    Pentateuch 

Ibid.,  ii.  356,  658. 
Egli.     "  Zur  Textkritik  von  Gen.  xx."     Zeitschrift  f.  JTiss.  Theo- 

logie,  1880,  p.  344. 
Egli.     "  Pentateuchisches."     /(^Z(f.,  1881,  p.  205. 
Ehrt.     Abfassungszeit  u.  Abschluss  d.  Psalters,  etc.     Leipz.,  1870. 
Eichhorn.     Einteitungind.  Alte  Test.    4teAufl.    Getting.,  1823-24. 
Eichhorn.      Weltgcsc'hichte.     5  vols.      1801-1814. 
Eichhorn.     Repcrtorium  fur  Bib.  u.  MorgenUind.  Literaiiir.     10 

Bde.     Leipz.,  1787-1801. 
Eichhorn.     "  Urgeschichte."    Repertorinfn,\y.,  v.  (1779). 
Einhorn.     Princip  dcs  Mosaisnnis.     Leipz.,  1854. 
Elliot.     Moses  and  Modern  Science.     Lond.,  1871. 
Elliott.      "Unity  of  the  Pentateuch."     Ilcb.  Student,  ]\mc,  1883. 
Elliott.       Vindication   of  the    Mos.    Authorship    of    Pentateuch. 

Cincinnati,  1884. 
Encyclopa:dia  Britannica.     lias  valuable  articles   on  the  O.   Test. 

Books  and  the  Criticism  of  tlie  O.  T. 


1-1 


426        TJic  Pcntatejicli :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Engel.     Losung  d.  Paradiesfrage.     Leipz.,  1885. 

Engelhardt.     "  Ein  Beitrag  zurFrage  liber  die  Cherubim."  Zeitsch. 

f.  Luther.  Theologie,  etc.     1861. 
Engelhardt.     "  Die  Idee  der  Stiftshiitte."     Idem,  1868. 
Engelstoft.     Historia  Popidi  Judaici  Biblica  usque  Occupationem 

Palcesiinae.     Copenhag.,   1832. 
Erdmann.     Natnr  ti.  Schopfjing.   'Leipz.,  1840. 
Ernesti.     "  On  conforming  to  the  Laws  of  Criticism  in  the  Study  of 

Divinity."     Opusada  Oratoria,  3.     Leyden,  1762. 
Erpenius.     Pentateuchus  Mosis,  Arabice.     Leyden,  1622. 
Essays  and  Reviews.     Eds.  1-9.     Lond.,  1861. 
Esteoule.     Essai  sur  VAiUorite  de  VAncien  Test.     Paris,  186 1. 
Etheridge.     Targutns  of  Onkelos  a7id  Jonathan.     Lond.,  1862-65. 
Etheridge.     Introduction  to  Hcb.  Literature.     Lond.,  1856. 
Ewald.     De  P'eriarum  Hebraearuni  Or.  et  Ratione.   Getting. ,  1 84 1 . 
Ewald.     Die  Althcrth'umer  d.  Volkes  Israel.     Getting.,  1866. 
Ewald.     Jahrbucher  d.  Bib.  Wissenschaft.     Getting.,  1849-65. 
Ewald.     Geschichted.  Volkes  Israel.    3te  Ausg.    Gotting.,  1864-68. 
Ewald.     The  History  of  Israel.     4  vols.     Lond.,  187 1. 
Ewald.     Die  Propheten  d.  Alten  Bundeserklart.     2teAufi.     3  Bde. 

Getting.,  1867-68. 
Ewald.     Dichterd.  Alten  Bundes.     3te  Ausg.     3  Bde.     1866-67. 
Ewald.     Die  Composition  d.   Genesis  kritisch  tmtersticht.     Braun- 
schweig, 1823. 
Ewald.     Review  of  Staheliii's  Krit.  Unterstcchung  iiber  die  Genesis. 

Stud.  u.  Kritiken,  1 831,  iii. 
Ewald.       "  Neue  Untersuchungen  liber   den   Gott  der   Erzvater." 

Jahrbucher  d.  Bibl.  Wissenschaft,  1859-60,  x.  p.  i. 
Ewald.     "  Ueber  die  Volks-und  Geistesfreiheit  Israel's  zur  Zeit  der 

grossen  Propheten    bis    zur    ersten    Zerstorung    Jerusalems." 

Ibid.,  1848,  i.  p.  95. 
Ewald.     "Ueber  die  Wendung  aller  Geschichte  Israel's  in  ihrer 

hohen  Mitte."     Ibid.,  1859-60,  x.  p.  29. 
Ewald.     "  Das  grosse  Lied  im  Deuteronomium  xxx."     Ibid.,  1856, 

viii.  p.  41. 
Ewald.     "  Die  Weissagungen  Bileam's."     Ibid.,  1856,  viii.  p.  i. 
Ewald.     "Erklarung    der    Biblischen    Urgeschichte.        Ibid,     (in 

various  numbers),  1848-58. 
Ewald.     "  Ueber  das  suchen  und  finden  sogenannter  Makkabaischer 

Psalmen."    Ibid.,  1853-54,  vi.  p.  20. 
Examen  Critique  de  V Ancien  Test.  :  Le  Pentateuque.     Paris,  1882. 
Exell.     Homiletical  Commentary  on  Genesis.     Lend.,  1875. 
Faber,     Horae  Mosaicae.     2  vols.     Oxford,  1 801. 
Faber.    ArchiioLdcr Hebrlier.  (Onlyparti.  appeared.)   Halle,  1773. 
Fabri.     Entstehung  d.  Heidenthums.     Barmen,  1859. 
Fabricius  (d.  1654).     Disputatt.  in  Genesim,  etc. 
Fabricy.     Des  Litres  Primitifs  de  la  Revelation.     Rome,  1772. 
Fagius.     Versio  ad  Targ.  Onkelos  cum  Notts.     Argent.,  1546. 
Fairbairn.     The  Revelation  of  Law  in  Scripture.     Edinb.,   1868- 
Fairbairn.     The  Typology  of  Scripture.     Edinb.,  1876. 


Literature  of  the  Pcntatctich.  427 

Fairbairn.     Imperial  Bible  Dictionary.     Edinb.,  1865. 
Fairholme.     Afosaic  Deluge.     Lond.,  1840. 
Farrer.     Primitive  MatDicrs  and  Ctistoms.     Lond.,  1876. 
Fassel.     D.  Mos.  Rabbiiiische  Civilrecht.     Gr.  Kanisha,  1854. 
Fausset.     The  Englishman's  Crit.  and  Expository  Bible  Encyclo- 

pcedia.     Lond.  and  New  York,  188 1.     See  also  Jamieson. 
Favez.     Le  Deuteronome.     Lausanne,  1874. 

Fayus.    Defensio Relig.ncc  non  Mosis  et  Gentis  Jicd.    Ultraj.,  1709. 
Feldhoff.     Die  Zeitenlinie  d.  Heil.  Schrift.     Frankf.,  1831. 
Feldhoff.     Die  Volkertaf el  der  Genesis .     Elberfeld,  1837. 
Fenton.     Early  Hebrew  Life.     Lond.,  1880. 

Fenton.     "  Prim.  Heb.  Land  Tenure."     Theol.  Review,  Oct.,  1877. 
Fenton.     "  The  Goel."     Theol.  Review,  Oct.,  i%y^. 
Fergus .     Laws  and  Institutions  of  Moses .     1 8 1 1 . 
Ferguson,  H.     "  Historical  Testimony  of  the  Prophet  Zephaniah." 

Jour,  of  Soc.  of  Bib.  Lit.  and  Exegesis,  Jan. -June,  1884. 
Ferguson,  R.     Sacrifice  itt   Relation  to   God  and  Man.     Lend., 

1856. 
Ferri^re.     Le  Paganisme  des   Htbrenx  Jnsqic'  ii    la    Captivitt   de 

Baby  lone.     Paris,  1884. 
Fichte.     Versnck  e.  Kritik  alter  Offenbarnng.     Konigsb.,  1793. 
Field,  F.     Origenis  Hexaploriim  quae  super  sunt.     Oxford,  1875. 
Field,  H.M.     "  Humane  Features  of  the  Mosaic  Law."     Bibliotheca 

Sac,  X.  p.  340. 
Filachou.     Commentaire  Philosophiqice  du  Premier  Chapitre  de  la 

Genhe.     Paris,  1882. 
Fink.     Gesch.  u.  IVesenheit  d.  Religiofien.     Leipz.,  1844. 
Fischer.     Heidenthum  11.  Offenbarnng.     Mainz,  1878. 
Fischer.     Urgeschichte  d.  Menschen  it.  die  Bibel.     Wurzburg,  1878. 
Fleming.     Fallen  Angels  and  Heroes  of  Mythology.     Lond.,   1880. 
Fleming.     The  Gospel  in  Leviticus.     Lond.,  1880. 
Fleury.     Moers  des  Israelites.     Bruxelles,  1701. 
Flockner.     Z.   Aidhentie  n.   Integretiit  d.   Moseliedes.     Beuthen, 

1876. 
Floigl.     Gesch.  d.  Semit.  Altertnms  in  Tabellen.     Leipz.,  1882. 
Fluegel.     Die  Mosaische  Dicit  iDid  Hygiene.     Kalamazoo,  1881. 
Formby.     Monotheism  derived  from  the  Hebrew  Nation  and  the 

Law  of  Moses,   the  Primitive  Relig.   of  the   City  of  Rome. 

Lond.,  1877. 
Fowle.     "  The   Place   of  Revelation    in    Evolution."     Nineteenth 

Ce7d.,  Sept.,  1881. 
Fowler,  C.  H.     Fallacies  of  Coletiso  Reviewed.     Cincinnati,   1865. 
Fowler,  F.  W.     Answer  to  Colenso.     Lond.,  1863. 
Frankel.     Das  Mosaisch-Talmudische  Eherecht.     Breslau,  i860. 
Frankel.     "  Ueber   d.    Entwickelung    der    Pentateuch  -  Perikopen- 

Verlesung."     Monatschrift  f.  Gesch.  u.  IViss.  d.  JudetUliums, 

1867,  p.  385. 
Frankel.      "  I)ie   Zeit   des    Konigs   Chiskija    und    der    Zeitgenos- 

sischen  Propheten.     Ibid.,  1870,  p.  49. 
Freihold.     Das  Erste  Leben  d.  Menschheit.     Jena,  1876. 


428        The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Freund    u.    Marx.      Prdperation     sum    Alien    Testament.      The 

Pentateuch  appeared,  Leipz.,  1863. 
Frey.     Hist,  ab  Orbe  Coiidito  ad  Mosis  Mortem.     Basel,  1583. 
Friederich.     Symbolik  d.  Mosaichcn  StiftsJuitte.     Leipz.,  1841. 
Friedhoff.      Status  Primi  Hominis  Supernaturalis   et   Indcbitus 

Theissing,  1850. 
Friedlander.     GcschicJde  d.  Is.  Volkes.     Leipz,,  1848. 
Friedreich.     Ueber  die  J'ud.  Beschneidung.     Ausbach,  1844. 
Friedrich.     Der  Segen  Jacobs.     Breslau,  1811. 
Fries.     "  Die  Lage  von  Kades.''     Stud.  u.  Kritiken,  1854,  p.  50. 
Fries.     "  Z.    Kamphausen's    Bemerkungen    iiber   die   Stiftshiitte." 

Stud.  u.  Kritiken,  1859,  i. 
Fritzsche.     De  Revelatiojiis  Notione  Biblica  Com.     Leipz.,  1828. 
Fritzsche.       Priifung   der    Gr'unde    mit    welchen     netierlich    die 

Aechtheit  d.  Bucher  Mosis  bestritten  warden  ist.     Leipz.,  18 14. 
Froschammer.     Ueber  d.    Genesis  d.   Menschengeschlechts .     Miin- 

chen,  1883. 
Fulda.     "  Ueber   das  Alter   d.    Heil.    Schriften    d.    Alten    Test." 

Paulus'  Neues  Reperto7'iu7n,  1791,  iii. 
Fulda.     "  Resultate  Freimiithiger  Untersuchung  ueber  den  Kanon 

d.  Alten  Testament.'"     Paulus'  Mefnorabilien,  1795. 
Fulton.     The  Law  of  Marriage,   containing   the   Heb.  Law,    etc. 

New  York,  1883. 
Furst,     Der    Pentateuch.     Illustrirte    Volksausgabe.      Prag,   1882. 
Flirst.     "  Beitrage  zur  Kritik  der  Bucher  Samuel."     Zeitschrift  f. 

IViss.  Theologie,  1881,  p.  170. 
Furst.     Hebrdisches  71.  Chald.  Ha7idwdrterb7ich.      3te  Aufl.  bear- 

beitet  von  Ryssel.     Leipz.,  1876. 
FUrst.     Geschichted.  Biblischen  Liter at7ir.    2  Bde.    Leipz.,  1867-70. 
Gaab.     Beitrage  z.   Erkldr.  des  i,  2,  4  B.  Mosis.     Tubing.,  1796. 
Gaab.      "  Explicatio  Nova  Cap.  xxxiii.  Deuteronomii."      Co77tmen- 

tationes  Theologicae  oi  Velthusen,  etc.     Leipz.,  1794-99. 
Gabler.     Afeue  Vers7ichuiig  uber  die  Mos.  Sch'bpf/mgsgeschichte  a7is 

der  Hdhere7i  Kritik.     Niirnb.,  1796. 
Gainet.     Accord  de  la  Bible  et  de  la  Geologie  da7is  le  Credtio7i  de  six 

Jours.     Reims,  1867. 
Gall.     P7-i77ieval  Man.     2d  ed.     Lond.,  1880. 
Galloway.     Philos.  of  the  Creation.     (Gen.  i.-x.)     Edinb.,  1885. 
Garbett.     Divine  Pla7i  of  Revelatio7i.     Boyle  Lect.     Lond.,  1864. 
Garbett.     The  Bible  a7id its  Critics.     Boyle  Lect.     Lond.,  1861. 
Gardiner.     "  Note  on  Gen.  xi.  26."     Bibliotheca  Sac,  Oct.,  1877. 
Gardiner.     Old  a7id  N.    Testa77ients  i7i   their  Mut7ial  Relations. 

New  York,  1885. 
Gardiner.     "  Early  Narratives  in  Genesis."   A 777.  Church  Rev.,  xxk. 

Gardiner.     "Darwinism."     Bibliotheca  Sac,  xxix.  p.  240. 
Gardiner.     "  Chronolog.    Value    of    the    Genealogy   in   Gen.    v." 

Bibliotheca  Sac,  xxx.  p.  323. 
Gardiner.     '^Relation  of  Ezekiel  to  the  Levitical  Law."     Journal 

ofSoc.  of  Bib.  Lit.  and  Exegesis,  July-Dec,  1881. 


Literature  of  the  Pentateuch.  429 

Garland.     Genesis:   With  Notes,  q\.c.     Lond.,  1878. 

Gartner.     Bibelu.  Geologie.     Stuttg.,  1867. 

Gast.     "  Assyrian  Research  and  the  Old  Testament."    Rcf.  Quart. 

Review,  1884,  p.  178. 
Gast.     "Pentateuch  Criticism:     its    History  and  Present  State." 

lief.  Quart.  Review,  1882,  pp.  179,  374. 
Gauhnin.     De  Vita  et  Morte  Mosis.     Paris,  1628. 
Gaussen.      TJie  Exodus  of  Israel.     Lond.,  1869. 
Gaussen.     Le  Premier   Chapitre  de  la  Genhe  ExposL     2^  6dit. 

Toulouse,  1865. 
Gaussen.     From  Egypt  to  Sinai.     Lond.,  1869. 
Gautier.     "  Quelques  Opinions  R6centes  sur  '  Jehovah.'"     Rev.  de 

Thcol.  et  de  Philos.,  Oct.,  1877. 
Geddes.     Critical  Remarks   on   the  Hebrew  Scriptures.      Vol.  i. 

(Pentat.).     Lond.,  1800. 
Geddes.     Kritischb  u.  Exeget.  Anmerkungen  u.  cine  Abhandlung 

tieber  Mosis  tt.  die  Verfasser  des  Pentateuchs.     Halle,  1802. 
Geftken.     Ueber  die   Verschiedene  Eintheilung  des  Dekalogus  und 

den  Einfluss  dcrsclben  auf  den  Cultus.     Hamb.,  1838. 
Geiger.     Urschrift  u.  Uebersetsung  der  Bibel.     Breslau,  1857. 
Geiger.     "  Das  nach  Onkelos  benannte  Thargum  zum  Pentateuch." 

Jiidische  Zeitschrift,  1 871,  p.  85. 
Geiger.     "  Die  Lebensjahre  d.   zwei   altesten  Geschlechtsreihen." 

Zeitsch.f.  IViss.  u.  Leben,  1861,  pp.  98,  175. 
Geiger.    Die  Gesetzlichen  Differenzen  zwischen  Saniar.  u.  Juden." 

Zeitsch.  d.  Dent.  Morgenland.  Gesellschaft,  xx.  p.  527. 
Geio'er.     "  Gen.   vi.  3  bei  den  Samaritanern."    Zeitsch.  d.   Deut. 

Morgenland.  Gesellschaft,  xxviii.  p.  489. 
Geiger.     Cf.  also,  ibid.  xvi.  p.  714 ;  xviii.  pp.  590,  813  ;  xix.  p.  610  ; 

XX.  pp.  143,  447;  xxi.  p.  169;  xxii.p.  528. 
Geiger.  "  Der  Baal  ind.  Hebra.  Eigennamen."   Ibid.,  xvi.  p.  728. 
Geiger.     Das  Judcntluim  u.  seine  Geschichte.     Breslau,  1871. 
Geike.     Hours  with  the  Bible.     Vols,  i.,  ii.     Lond.,  1881. 
Gelbe.     Zur  Einleitung  ins  Alte  Test .     Leipz.,  1866. 
Gell.    Amend,  of  Eng.  Translation  of  the  Bible.    Vi.'i.,  Pefitateuch. 

Lond.,  1659. 
Gellion-Danglar.     Les  Semites  et  le  Semitisme.     Paris,  1882. 
"  Genesis  and  the  Commentators."     Scottish  Rev.,  Nov.,  1882. 
Genesis  in  Advance  of  Present  Science.     A  Crit.   Examination  of 

Chaps,  i.-ix.  (anonymous).     Lond.,  1883. 
George.     Die  Aelteren  Judischcn  Teste,  etc.     Berlin,  1835 
Gerard.     Institutes   of  Bib.  Criticism.     Boston,  1823. 
Gerdes.     De  Festo  Clangoris.     Duisburg,  1730. 
Gerhard,  J.     Com.  super  Deutcronomium.     Jena,   1567. 
Gerhard,  J.     Com.  super  Genesin.     Jena,  1693. 
Gerhard,  P.     "  1st  d.  Stiftshlitte  eine  tendenciose  Fiction,"   etc.  ? 

Beweis  d.  Glaubens,  Oct.,  1879. 
Gerlach.     J)as  Alte  Testament  mit  Einleit .     licrlin.  1843. 
Gesenius.  De  Pentateuchi  Samaritani  Origine,  Indole  et  Auctoritate. 
Halle,  18 1 5. 


430       The  PentateucJi  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Gesenius.     Hebraisches  u.  Chal.  Handworterb.  i'lber  d.  Alte  Test. 

9te  Aufl.     (Muhlau  u.  Volck.)     Leipz.,  1882-83. 
Gessner.     Das  Liedd.  Deborali  i'lbersetzt  u.  erkldrt.     Quakenbruch, 

1879. 
Gfrorer.     Urgesch.  des  Menschengeschlechts .     Schaffhausen,   1885. 
Ghillany.     Die  Menschenopfer  bei  alten  Hebr'der.     (Cf.   Sttid.    u. 

Kritiken,  1843,  i^-)     NUrnb.,  1842. 
Ghillany.     Das  judenthnm  u.  die  Kritik.     Nurnb.,  1844. 
Gibbens.     Qjiestions  on  first  \\  Chaps,  of  Genesis.     Lond.,   1601. 
Gibson.     The  Mosaic  Era.     New  York,  188 1. 
Gibson.     Ages  Before  Moses.     Ibid.,  i2>jg. 
Giesebrecht.     "  Zur  Hexateuchkritik."     Zeitsch.f.Alttest.  Wissen- 

schafi,  1 88 1,  f.  177. 
Giesebrecht.     "  Abfassungszeit  der  Psalmen."    /i^/;^.,  pp.  276-332. 
Gieseler.     "  Ob  Aben-Esra   Mosen  fiir   den  Verfasser   des    Penta- 

teuchs  halte."     Stud.  u.  Kritiken.  1829,  i. 
Giles.     Hebrew  and  Christian  Records.     Lond.,  1877. 
Girdlestone.     Getiesis:   its  Aiithcfiticity,  Qic.     Lond.,  1864. 
Gladstone.     "  The  Iris  of  Homer  and  her  relation  to  Genesis  ix. 

11-17."     Contemp.  Review,  h^ixW,   1878. 
Glaire.     lHtrodnctio)i  historiqite  et  critique  auxlivres  de  PAncien  et 

du  Nouveau  Testament.     4^  ddit.     5  vols.     Paris,  1868-69. 
Godet.     £tudes  bibliques.     i^e  s^rie :  Ancien  Testament.     2^  6dit. 

Neuch^tel,  1873.     Lond.  (in  Eng.),  1875-79. 
Godwin.     Civil  and  Eccles.  Rites  of  An.  Hebrews.     Oxford,   1616. 
Goens.     "  La  Methode  de  la  Critique  d'apr^s  A.  Kuenen."    Revue 

de  TMol.  et  de  Philosophic,  1881,  p.  164. 
Goldziher.     D.  Mythus  bei  den  Hebraern.     Leipz.,   1876.     Lond. 

(in  English),   1877. 
Goltz.     Gottes    Offenbarung  durch  Heil.  Geschichte,  nach    ihretn 

Wesen  betrachtet.     Basel,  1868. 
Goodwin,  C.  W.     "  On  the  Mosaic  Cosmogony."    Recent  Inquiries 

in  Theology,  Boston,  1861. 
Goodwin,  H.     Gradual  Devel.  of  Revelation.     Lond.,  1871. 
Goodwin,  H.     Essays  on  tiie  Pentateuch.     Lond.,  1867. 
Gdrres.     Die  Volkertafel  d.  Pentateuch.     Regensb.,  1845. 
Graetz.     "  Segen Bileams."    Monatschr.  f.  Gesch.  ti.Wiss.  d.  Jud., 

1884,  p.  468. 
Graetz.     Geschichte  der  Juden  von  den  alt  est  en  Zeiten  bis  auf  die 

Gegenwart.     2te  Aufl.     11  Bde.     Leipz.,  1864-70. 
Graetz.     "Das    Debora-Lied."     Monatschrift  f.    Gesch.  ti,   IViss. 

d.  Judenthums,  1881,  p.  193;   1882,  p.  123, 
Graf.     De  Templo  Silonensi,  ad  illustrandum  locum   fud.,  xviii. 

30,31.     Meissener  Programm,  1855. 
Graf.     "  Beitrage  zu  den  Theologischen  Wissenschaften  von    den 

Mitgliedern  der  Theolog.  Gesellschaft  zu  Strassburg."     Heft  i. 

Jena,    1847.      The  ?rt.    has   reference     to    Simon's    Histoire 

Critique  du  Vieux  Testament. 
Graf.     Die  Geschich.  Bilcher  d.  Alten    Testaments.     Leipz.,  i866. 
Graf.     Der  Segen  Mosis  erkldrt.     Leipz.,  1857. 


Literahire  of  the  Pejitateuch.  431 

Graf.     "Was  bedeutet  d.  Ausdruck  '  vor  Gott  erscheinen'  in  d. 

Gesetzen  d.  Pentat.,  Ex.  xxi.  6;  xxii.  7,  8."     Zeitsch.  d.  Deid. 

Morgenldnd.  Gesellschaft,  xviii.  p.  309. 
Graf.     Der  StaiiDii  Simeon.     Meissener  Programm,  1866. 
Graf.     "  Zur    Geschichte    des    Stammes    Levi."     Merx's    Archiv, 

1867,  pp.  68,  208.     See  also  his  reply  to  Riehm's  strictures  on 

Die  Geschich.   Bucher  d.  A.    T.,  Stud.  11.  Kritiken,   1868,  in 

Merx's  Archiv,  1869. 
Graf.     "  Priester."     Schenkel's  Bibel-Lex. 
Graham.     The  Mosaic  Cosmogony.     Lond.,  1865. 
Gramberg.     Die  Chronik  nach  ihrem  Geschichtlichen  Character ,  etc., 

gepruft.     Halle,  1823. 
Gramberg.     Kritische  Geschichte  d.  Religionsideen  d.   Alt  en   Test. 

Berlin,  1829-30. 
Gramberg.      Libri    Geneseos  secundum    Fotites   rite  digtioscendos 

Adumbratio  Nova.     Leipz.,  1828. 
Grandpierre.     Essai  snr  le  Pentateuque.     Paris,  1844. 
Grant.     Bible  Record  of  Creation   True  for  every  Age.     Lond., 

1877. 
Grasshoff.     Das  Erste  B.  Mose.     Bremen,  1884. 
Graves.     Lectures  on  the  Last    Four  Books   of   the   Pentateuch. 

Dublin,  1 83 1. 
Gray.     Mosaic  Record  and  the  Earth'' s  Antiquity.     Lond.,  1851. 
Greaves  (d.  1676).     Observatt.  in  Persicu/n  Petit.  Versionem. 
Green,  J.  B.    Hebrew  Migration  from  Egypt.    2d  ed.    Lond.,  1882. 
Green,  W.     Song  of  Deborah.  .  .   Trans,  and  Com.    Lond.,  1723. 
Green,  W.  H.     "  Genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch."  Princeton  Rev., 

Jan.,   1878. 
Green,  W.  H.     The  Pentateuch  Vindicated  from  the  Aspersions  of 

Bishop  Colenso.     New  York,  1863. 
Green,  W.  H.     "  Prof.  W.  Robertson  Smith  on  the  Pentateuch." 

Presbyt.  Review,  1882,  p.  108. 
Green,  W.  H.     Moses  and  the  Prophets.     New  York,  1883. 
Green,  W.   H.     "Was   Moses   the   Author   of  the  Pentateuch?" 

Herzog's  Encyck.     Am.  ed.  by  Schaff  ^■.■z'.  "  Pentateuch." 
Gregory  (of  Nyssa).      Mystica     Vitae    Mosis    Ennarratio.     Lat. 

trans.     Basel,  1521. 
Gresswell.     Objections  of  Colenso  Unfoiuided.     Lond.,  1863. 
Gr6tillat.     "Wellhausen  et  sa  M^thode  dans  sa  Critique  du  Pen- 
tateuque."   Revue de  Thiol,  et  de  Philos,  Sept.,  1883. 
Gr6tillat.     "  La   Thdorie   du    Sacrifice  L^vitique  d'apr^s  Baehr  et 

Oehler."     Ibid.,  1881. 
Grevin.     Nouvelle  etude  sur   le   chapitre  pretnier  de  la    Genise. 

Paris,  1859. 
Griesinger.     D.  Ajtthetitie  d.  A.  T.  Schriften.     Stuttg.,  1804. 
Griesinger.     Ueber  d.  Pentateuch.     Ibid.,  1806. 
Griffin.     Colenso  atid  the  Pentateuch.     Lond.,  1863. 
Grill.     Die,Ersvdter  der  Menschheit.     Leipz.,  1875. 
Grilliot.    Etudes  H'istoriques  et  Crit.  sur  Ics  Religions.     Paris,  18S3 
Grimmel.     De  Lapidum  Cultu  apud  Patriarchas.     Marburg,  1853. 


432        TJic  Pentateuch:  Its  Oris^iji  and  Stnicture, 


Grohmann.       Einzig    M'ogl.    Standpiiiikt    die     Offenbarimg    zu 

beitrtheilen.     Leipz.,  1798. 
Grohmann.      Offenbariing7i.  Mythologie.     Berlin,  1789. 
Grohmann.     Die  H'dhere  RcUg.  Ucberzcugiuig.     Hamb.,  181 1. 
Gronemann.     Die  Jonathaiiische  Pcutateuch-Uebersetzting in  ihrem 

Verhixltnisse  2nr  Halacha.     Leipz.,  1879. 
Groot.     History  of  the  Israelites  and  Jiiiiaans.    New  York,  1879. 
Groser.     Introduction  to  Josh.,  Jud.,  Ruth,  a  Sam.     Lond.,  1881. 
Grosse.      Allgeineine  HistoriscJi-Krit.     Einleitung  in    sammtliche 

Kanon.     B'uclier  d.  Alien  lest.     Leipz.,  1821. 
Grotius.     Explicatio  Decalogi,  etc.     Amsterd.,  1640. 
Grotius.     Annotationes  in  V.  T.     3  tomi.     Halle,  1775. 
Gruner.        Diatr.    de    Primitiarwn     Oblatione    ac    Consecratione. 

Leyden,  1739. 
Gumpbach.     Ueber  den  Altjildischen  Kalender.     Brussels,  1848. 
Guthe.     De  Foederis  Notione  Jeremiana.     Leipz.,  1877. 
Guthe.     Fragment e  einer    lederhaiidscJwift    enth.     Mose''s   letzte 

Rede,  etc.     Leipz.,  1883. 
Guttler.     Empir.  Kritik  d.  Mos.  Ui'geschichte .     Freiburg,  1877. 
Guyau.     "  De  Origine  des  Religions."    Rev.  Philos.,  D^c,  1879. 
Guyot.     The  Bible  Cosmogony  in  the  light  of  Modern  Science.    New 

York,  1884.     Cf.  Dana  in  Bibliothcca  Sacra  for  April,  1885. 
Hachnelt.     Der  Thiir/nbau  zu  Babel.     Heidelb.,  1880. 
Hackett.     "  First  Eleven  Chapters  of  Gen.,"  etc.     Bibliotheca  Sac, 

xxii.  p.  395. 
Hackmann.     Praecidatiea   Sacra   S.  Ajtimadv.   Phil.    Crit.   exhib. 

Genesifi,  Exod.,  et  leviticum.     Leyden,  1735. 
Haeckel.     Evolution  of  Man.     2  vols.     Lond.,  1879. 
Haeckel.     History  of  Creation.     2  vols.     Lond.,  1876. 
Hagel.     Apologie  des  Moses.     Sulzbach,  1828. 
Haggenmacher.     Der  Ur sprung d.  Religion,  etc.     Leipz.,  1883. 
Hahn.     De  Religionis  et  Superstitionis  Natura  et  Ratione.     Bres- 

_  lau,  1834. 
Haitsma.     Cttrae  Philol.  Exegeticae  in  Cenesin.     Franeq.,  1753. 
Hal^vy.     "  Esdras  et  le  Code  Sacerdotal."    Revue  de  IHistoire  des 

Relig.,  iv.  p.  22. 
Hal^vy.     Melanges  de  Critique  et  dHistoire  relatifs  aux  Peuples 

Scmitiques.     Paris,  1883. 
Hamburger.     "  The  Tabernacle  in  Canaan."     Sunday-Sch.  Times, 

Sept.  22,  1884. 
Hamburger.     Reiil-Encyc.  fur  Bibel  ji.  Talmud.     Strelitz,  1870. 
Hamelmanne.     Comm.  in  Pentateuchum.     Dilingae,  1563. 
Hamilton.     A    General  Iiitroduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Hebrew 

Scriptures.     Dublin,  18 14. 
Hamilton,  W.  T.     The  Pentateuch   and  its   Assailants.      Edinb., 

1852. 
Hamm.     Exercitat.  Philol.  Sac.  de  Ara  Interiore.     Herborn,  1715. 
Haneberg.     Einleitung  in  Alt.  Ji.  N.  Test.     Regensb.,  1876. 
Haneberg.      Die   Reiigiosen    Alterthilmer    der    Bibel.      4te    Aufl 

Munchen,  1S69. 


Literature  of  the  Pentateuch.  433 

Hannecker.     Die  Philistder.     EichstJitt,  1872. 

Happel.     Anlage  d.  Menschen  Z7ir  Religion.     Leyden,  1877. 

Hardt.     Ephejnerid.  Philol.  qiiib.  dijjicil.    qicaedaiii   Loca   Pentat. 

Explicata.     Helmst.,  1693,  1696. 
Harkness.     Egyptian  Life  and  Hist,  according  to  the  Monuments. 

New  York,  1884. 
Harman.     Introd.   to  ^tudy   of  Ileb.    Scriptures .      3d    ed.      New 

York,  i88r.  ^ 
Harris.     Alan  Primeval.     Lond.,  1849. 
Harris.     Pre-Adatnite  Earth.     Lond.,  1850. 
Hartmann,  A.  T.     Aufkldrungen  i'tbcr  Asien.     Oldenburg,  1806. 
Hartmann,  A.  T.     Die  Enge  Verbinduiig  des  Alien  Testament  jnit 

d.  Afetien,  &tc.     Hamb.,  1831. 
Hartmann,    A.    T.      Lingnistische    Einleitung  in   d.   Studium   d. 

Bucher  d.  Alt.  Test.     Bremen,  1818. 
Hartmann,  A.  T.  /  HistoriscJi-KritiscJie  Forschungen  Ytber  d.  Bil- 

diDigd.  Zeitalter  n.  den  Plan  d.  F'lhif  Bucher  Mose''s.    Rostock, 

1831. 
Hartmann,  E.  von.     Das  Religiose  Beivusstsein  d.  Menschheit  im 

Stufengang  seiner  Entivickelung.     Berlin,  1882. 
Haselniann.     Der  Einzug  Is.  in  Canaan.     Barmen,  1872. 
Hasse,  F.  R.     Geschichte  des  Alien  Bundes.     Leipz.,  1863. 
Hasse,  J.  G.     Aitssichten  zu  Kunftigoi  Atfkldrungen  liber  d.  Alt. 

Test,  in  Briefeti.     Jena,  1785. 
Hasse,  J.  G.     Entdeckungen  im  Felde  d.  dltesten  Erde-und  Men- 

schengeschichte.     Halle,  1805. 
Hatton.      Tlie  Law  and  the  Prophets.     Lond.,  1866. 
Hauff.     Offenbarungsglaube  u.  Kritik  d.    Bibl.    Geschichtsbllcher. 

Stuttg.,  1849. 
Haug.     Das  Alt.  Test,  von  "  Der  von  Sctiiloli .''"'     Berlin,  1872. 
Haupt.     See  Delitzsch,  Fried. 

Haupt.     Keilinschriftliche  Sint/luthbericht.     Leipz.,  1881. 
Hauser.     Fabulous  Gods  denounced  in  the  Bible.     Phil.,  1880. 
Hausrath.     Geschichte  d.  Alttest.  Literatur.     Heidelb.,  1874. 
Havernick.     Handb.  d.  Historisch-Kritischen  Einleitung  in  d.  Alte 

Testament.     Erlang.,   1836-49.     A  second  edition  was  edited 

by  Keil,  1849,  1854-56  (in  English,  Edinb.,  1852). 
Hawks.     Egypt  a  IVitness  to  the  Bible.     New  York,  1850. 
Heath.     "The  Exodus."     Pal.  Explor.  Fund.  Quart.,  July,  1883. 
Hebrew  Migration  from  Egypt.     Lond.,  1879. 
Hecht.      Der  PoUateuch.      Explau.    from    Raschi.      Braunschw., 

1848. 
Hecker.     Die  Israeliten  11.  der  Monotheismus .     From  tlie  Dutch. 

Leipz.,  1879. 
Hedge.     Primeval  World  of  Hebrc-iO  Tradition.     Boston,  1869. 
Heibert.     V0//1  Paradies  bis  sum  Schilfmeer.     Parallelen  zwischeft 

biblischen  und  ausserbiblischen  Berichten.     Gera,  1881. 
Heidenhcim.     Die  Samar.  Pentateuch-Version.     Leipz.,  1884. 
Heidegger.     Historia  Sacra  Patriarcluirum.     Amsterd.,  1688. 
Heiligstedt.     Prliperation  zur  Genesis.     Halle,  1872. 


434       ^^^  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Heilprin.     The  Hist.   Poetry   of  the   Ancient  Hebrews.      2   vols 

New  York,  1880. 
Heim.     Bibelstunden  liber  d.  Erste  B.  Mosis.      Stuttg.,  1845  fF. 
Heinemann.      Geschiclite  der  Judcn.     Berlin,  1849. 
Heinemann.     D.  VVahrheiten  d.  Is.  Religion  Nachgewiesen.     Ber- 

lin,  1853. 
Heinemann.     Der  Pentateuch   mil    Uebersetztrng,    Targ.  u.    Com- 

mentatoren.     5  Bde.     Berlin,  1831-33. 
Hellwald.       ddturgeschichte    in     ihrer    Natur.       Entwickelmig. 

Augsb.,   1874. 
Hempbell.     "  Christ's  Testimony  to  the  Mos.  Authorship  of  the 

Pentateuch."     Southern  Presbyt.  Rev.,  Jan.,  1884. 
Hengstenberg.     Die    GeschicJite  Bileams   u.  Seine    VVeissagungen. 

BerHn,  1842.     Eng.  Trans.,  Edinb.,  1848. 
Hengstenberg.     "  Moses  u.  Colenso."     Evangel.  Kirchen-Zeitung, 

Jan.,  Feb.,  1864. 
Hengstenberg.     Die  Anthentie  d.  Pentateuchs.     Berlin,  1836-39. 
Hengstenberg.     GeschiclUe  d.  Reiches  Gottes  tmter  d.  Alien  Bunde. 

Berlin,  1869-71.     In  English,  Edinb.,  1871,  1873. 
Hengstenberg.     Die  Biicher  Mose''s  nnd  yEgypten.     Berlin,  1841. 

Eng.  Trans.,  Edinb.,  1845  ;  New  York,  1850. 
Hengstenberg.     Beitrage  ziir  Einleitung  ins  Alte   Test.     3  Bde. 

Berlin,  1831-39. 
Hengstenberg.     Die  Opfer  der  Heiligen  Schriften.     Berlin,  1852. 
Hengstenberg.     "  Das   Passa."     Evangel.  Kirchen-Zeitung,    1852, 

Nos.  16-18. 
Henry,  F.  A.     "  The  Critical  Study  of  the  Scriptures.''     Princeton 

Rcviezu,  1883,  p.  294. 
Henry,  F.  A.     "  Reconstruction   in    Religious   Thought."     Ibid., 

July,  1884.. 
Henry,  M.     Com.  on  the  O.and  N.  Testaments.     Lond.,  1875. 
Henry,  P.     Expos,  of  Gen.i.,-xi.     Lond.,  1838. 
Hensler.     Bemerkungen  i'lber  Sfellen  in  den  Psalmen  utid  in  der 

Genesis.     Hamburg,  1791. 
Henslow.     "First  Chapter  of  Genesis."      Christ.  Apologist,  April, 

1877. 
Herbst.     De  Pentateuchi  Quatuor  Ltbrorjim  Posteriorum  Auctore  et 

Editor  e.     Tubing. ,  18 17. 
Herbst.     Historisch-Kritische  Einleitung  in  die  Heil.  Schriften  d. 

Alien  Test.    (Completed  and  published,  after  the  author's  death, 

by  Welte.)     4  Bde.     Freiburg,  1840-44. 
Herberger.     Das  Erste  B.  Moses  ausgelegt.     Halle,  1854. 
Herder.     Aelteste  Urkunde  des  Menschengeschlechts.     Riga,   1774. 
Hereford.      "  Trustworthiness   of   Hebrew   Traditions."      Atlantic 

Monthly,  Nov.,  1882,  p.  597. 
Heringa.     "  Ueber  den  Begrijf,  die  Unentbehrlichkeit  u.  den  rich- 

tigen   Gebrauch  der  Bib.  Kriiik''''  (aus    der    HoUandisch   von 

Beckhaus).     Offenbach,  1804. 
Hershon.     Genesis,  7uith  a  Talmudical  Commentary  (^Pent.  accord. 

to  Talmud).     Lond.,  1883. 


Literature  of  the  Pentatetich.  435 

Hertz.     Sind in  den  Buchern  der  Konige  Spiiren  d.  Pentateuchs  u.  d. 
Mos .  Gesetze  zii  fin  den  ?    Altona,  1822. 

Herwerden.     Disputatio  de  Libra  Josuae.     Grbningen,  1826. 

Herxheimer.     Der  J'entateiich  erklcirt,  &X.c.     Leipz.,  1864. 

Hertwig.     Tabellen  zitr  Einleit.  in  d.  Ktmon.   ti.  Apok.  B'ucher  d. 
Alien  Test,  (neu  bearbeitet  von  Kleinert).     Berlin,  1869. 

Herzberger.     Einleitjingin  die  Bibel.     Friedberg,  1840. 

Herzfeld.  Geschichte  d.  Volkes  Israel.  3  Bde.  Nordhausen, 
1847-57. 

Herzog.     Relil-Encyk.     Hamb.,  1854  ff.     2te  Aufl.     Leipz.,  1877  ff. 

Hess.     Bibliothck  der  Heiligen  Geschichte.     Zurich,  179 1. 

Hess.  Geschichte  d.  Israeliten  vor  den  Zeiten  Jesu.  Zurich, 
1776-88. 

Heumann.     De  Fato  Uxoris  non  Miracidoso.     Jena,  1706. 

Hewson.  The  Heb.  and  Greek  Scriptures  compared  with  Oriental 
History,  etc.    ,Lond.,  1870. 

Heyman  de  Ricql^s.  Demonstration  de  la  Divinite  du  Pentateuque. 
Lyon,  1844. 

Heyse  et  Tischendorf.  Biblia  Sacra  Latina  V.  T.  Hieronymo 
Interprete,  etc.     Leipz.,  1873. 

Hezel.  Versnch  einer  Geschichte  d.  Bibl.  Kritik  d.  Alten  Testa- 
ments.    Halle,  1780. 

Hezel.     Lehrbuch  der  Kritik  d.  Alt.  Test.     Leipz.,  1783. 

Hezel.     Geschichte  d.  Heb.  Spracheu.  Littcratiir.     Halle,  1776. 

Hezel.     Bibl.  Real-Lexikon.     Leipz.,  1783,  1785. 

Hezel.     Ueber  die  Qiiellen  d.  Mosa.  Urgeschichte.     Lemgo,  1780. 

Hezel.  Gedanken  uber  d.  Babylon.  Stadt-u.  Thurmbau.  Hild- 
biirg.,  1774. 

Hicks.     "  Primitive  Man."      Baptist  Quarterly,  July-Sept.,   1884. 

Hildebrandt.     Diss,  in  Pentateuchum.     Helmst.,  1684. 

Hilgenfeld.  "  Vatke's  Ansicht  liber  Pentateuch- J osua."  Zeitsch.f. 
IViss.  Theologie,  H.  1,2,  1885. 

Hill,  D.  J.  "Practical  Bearings  of  Mod.  Bib.  Criticism.  Proceed- 
ings of  Second  Baptist  Ant  uin.  Conference,  Boston,  1883. 

Hill,  U.J.  "  Antecedent  Probabilities  of  a  Revelation."  Prince- 
ton Rev.,  Sept.,  1883. 

Hill,  M.     Christ  or  Colenso.     Lond.,  1863. 

Hill,  T.     "  Erasmus  Darwin."     Bibliotheca  Sac,  xxxv.  p.  461. 

Hill,  T.  "  The  First  Chapter  of  Genesis."  Bibliotheca  Sac, 
xxxii.  p.  308. 

Hillen.  Relig.  Vorstellungen  im  Anfange  d.  Geschichte.  Coesfeld, 
1880. 

Hilliger.     Das  Debora-Lied.  Uebersetzt  u.  erkldrt.     Giessen,  1867. 

Himpel.  "  Selbstandigkeit,  EinlK-it.  u.  GlaubwUrdigkeit  d.  Buches 
Josua."  Tubing.  Theol.  Quartalsch.,  1864,  p.  385;  1865, 
p.  227. 

Hirsch.  Der  Pentateuch  Hebriier  Uebersetzt  u.  Erliiutert.  5  Bde. 
Frankfurt,  1876.     2te  Autl.   (Genesis),  1883. 

Hirschfelder.  Scriptures  Defended  (against  Colenso).  Toronto, 
Can.,  1864. 


43^       TJie  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Striccture. 

Hirt.     Der  Tempel  Salo7non''s.     Berlin,  1809. 

Hirzel.     De   Chaldaismi    Biblici    Origitie  et   Auctoritaie   Critica. 

Leipz.,  1830. 
Hirzel.     De  Pent.  Versionis  Syr.  Indole.     Leipz.,  1825. 
History  against  Colenso.     Lond.,  1864. 
Hitzig.     Begriff  der  Kritik  am  Alt.  Test.     Heidelb.,  1831. 
Hitzig.     Review   of  Von   Bohlen's  Genesis  and  Bleek's  De  Libra 

Geiteseos.     Stud.  u.  Kritiken,  1837,  iv. 
Hitzig.     Urgeschichte  u.  Mythologieder  Philistder.     Leipz.,  1845. 
Hitzig.     Ostern  tt.  Pfi>igste)i.     Heidelb.,  1837-38. 
Hitzig.     Die  Psalmen.     Leipz.,  1863. 
Hitzig.     Geschichte  d.  Volkes  Israel.     Leipz.,  1869. 
Hoare,  J.  N.     "  Relig.    of  the  Egyptians."     Nineteenth  Century, 

Dec,  1878. 
Hoare,  W.  H.     Letter  to  Bp.  Colenso.     Lond.,  1863. 
Hoare,  W.  H.      Veracity  of  the  Book  of  Genesis.     Lond.,  i860. 
Hobbes.     Leviathan.     Amsterd.,  1670;  Lond.,  1882. 
Hochstadter.      "Die    JVlosa.    Volkertafel."      ji'id.  Literaturblatt., 

1880,  p.  170. 
Hodge.     "  First  Two  Chapters  of  Gen."      Universal.  Quarterly, 

April,  1885. 
Hody.     De  Biblioruvi  Textibns  Originalibus ,   Versionibus  Graecis 

et  Lat.  Vulg.     4  vols.     Oxford,  1705. 
Hoelemann.      D.   Einhcit  d.  Beiden   ScJiopfungsgeschichte    (Gen. 

i.-ii.).     Berlin,  1862. 
HoflF.     Die  Mosaischen  Opfer .     Warschau,  1845. 
Hoffmann,   A.    G.     Entwnrf  d.  Hcbrci.    AltertM'imer.      Weimar, 

1832. 
Hoffmann,    D.      "  Abhandlungen   liber  die    Pentateuch-Gesetze." 


'& 


Magazin  f.  die  IViss.  d.  fndenthmns,  1879-80. 
Hoffmann,  W.     Die   G'ottliche  Stufenordnung  im  Alt.   Testament. 

Berlin,  1854. 
Hoffmeister.     Moses     u.    fosiia,    Eine    Kriegshistorische    Studie. 

Wien,  1878. 
Hofmann.     Der  Schriftbeweis .     2te  Aufl.     Nordlingen,  1857-60. 
Hofmann.     Aegyptisclie  7(.  IsraclitiscJie  Zeitrechjncng.     Ibid.,  1847. 
Hoijer.     De  Transitu  Israelii,  per  Mare  Rnbrum.     Jena,  1759. 
Holberg.     J'ud.  Geschichte  v.  Erschaffung  d.   Welt.     Band  i..  The 

Old  Test.     Altona,  1747. 
Hollenberg.     "  Zur   Textkritik   d.    Buches  Josua."     Zeitsch.  f.  d. 

Alttest.  Wissenschaft,  1881. 
Hollenberg.     "  Die  Deuteronom.  Bestandtheile  d.  B.  Josua."    Stud. 

u.  Kritiken,  1874,  p.  462. 
Hollenberg.     Programm   jiber   die   Alexand.    Uebersetzung  d.    B. 

Josua.     Mors,  1876. 
Hollmann.     Com.    Philol.-Crit.    in    Carmen    Deborae    (Jud.    v.). 

Leipz.,  1818. 
Holmes.      Vet.  Test.  Gr.  cum  Variis  Led.  ed.  R.  Holmes,  contin., 

Jacob  Parsons.     5  vols.     Oxford,  1798-1827. 
Holste.     Iter  Israelitarum  ex  ^Egypto  ad  Terram  Canaan.     Ros- 
tock, 1707. 


Literature  of  the  Pentateuch.  437 

Holzner.     Miuidus  a  Deo  Creatus.     Aschaffenb.,  1840. 

Homberg.     Lecture  sur  V Interpretation   a   donner  aiix  Prhniers 

Versets  de  la  Genhe.     Rouen,  1883. 
Hommel.     "  Zur  Altbabylon.  Chronologic."   Zeitsch.f.  Keilschrift- 

forschung,  etc.,  i.,  1884. 
Hommel.     Bab.- Assy rische  71.  Israelitische  Ceschichte  in  Tabellen- 

form.     Leipz.,  1880. 
Hommel.     "  Die  Lage  des  Gartens  Eden  nach  den  neuesten  keilin- 

schriftlichen    Forschungen."       Augsburg    Allgenieine    Zcititng 

(Wissenschaftliche  Beilagen),  Nos.  229-231. 
Honert.     Dissertationcs  Hist,  de  Creationc  Mnndi.     Leyden,  1738. 
Hopfner    (and    Augusti).     Exeget.  Handbuch    d.    A.     Testament. 

Leipz.,  1797-1800. 
Hopkins.      "Exposition   of    the    Original    Text   of    Gen.    i.,  ii." 

Bibliotheca  Sac.„  xxix.  pp.  510,  716. 
Hopkins.     Exodus :    Trans,   with    Notes,    Critical,    etc.     Lond., 

1784. 
Home.     "  Earliest  Epochs  of  Authentic  Chronology."     Fortnightly 

Rev..,  Oct.,  1862. 
Home.     Introdintionto  the  Critical  Sttidy  of  the  Scriptures.     13th 

ed.     Lond.,  1872. 
Horsley.     Bib.  Criticism  on  the  O.  Test.     Lond.,  1845. 
Horst.     Lev,  xvii.-xxvi.  n.  Hezekicl.     Colmar,  1881. 
Hottinger.     Exercitatt.  de  Pentatcuctio  Samaritano.     Zurich,  1644. 
Hottinger.     Historiae  Crcationis  Examoi.     Heidelb.,   1659. 
Hottinger.     Diss,  de  Heptaplis  Paris,  ex Pentat.instituta.    Zurich, 

1649. 
Hottinger.     Juris  Hebraeorum  Leges  CCLXI.     Zurich,  1655. 
Hottinger.     De  Decimis  Jjcdacontm  Exercitatt.     Leyden,  17 13. 
Hotzl.     Jakob  nnd  Esau,  Typik  nnd  Kasuistik.     Munchen,  1881. 
Houbigant.     Prolegomena  in  Sac.  Script.     Paris,  1745. 
Houbigant.     Notae   Criticae  in    Universos    V.    T.   Biblos.     Frank- 
furt, 1777. 
Houghton.     Some  of  Colenso''s  Objections  Examined.     Lond.,  1863. 
Howard.     LXX.  Version  of  the  Pentateuch.     Lond.,  1856-57. 
Huber.     Einleit.  in  d.  siimmtl.  B'ucher  d.  Heil.  ScJirift.     Basel, 

1841. 
Hufnagel.     Moseh  wie  er  sich  zeicJinet  in  seiner  Ceschichte.    Frank- 
furt, 1822. 
Hug.     De  Opere  Sex-  Dierum  Coin.     Freiburg,  1821. 
Hug.     Die  A f OS.  Ceschichte  des  Jfcnschen.     Leipz.,   1793. 
Hug.     "  Ueber  das  Mos.    (iesetz  vom  Jobeljahr."     Zeitsch.  f  d. 

Ersbisthum  Freiburg,  i. 
Hug.     De  I'entatcuchi  Versiojie  Alex.     TUbing.,  1818. 
Hulimann.     Staatsverfassung  dcr  Israeliten.     Leipz.,  1834. 
Hlillmann.      Ursprungd.  Religion  d.  /Uterthums.     Berlin,  1804. 
Hummelauer.     Der  Bibl.  Schopfungsbericht.     Freiburg,  1877. 
Hupfeld.     Die  (Juellen  der  Genesis.     Berlin,  1853. 
Hupfeld.     Commentatio    de    Primiti^'a   ct     Vera    Festorum   apud 

Hebraeos  Ratione.     Programme.     Halle,  1852-65. 


438        TJie  Pentateucli:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Hupfeld.     Die  Psalmen.     Gotha,  1867-70. 

Hurwitz.     Sagen  der    Hebrder  (from    the    English).      2te    Aufl. 

Leipz.,   1828. 
Hutton.     Silent  Witness  of  the  Hebrew  to  the  Truth  of  the  Historical 

Scriptures.     Lond.,  1882. 
Huxley.     "  Method  and  Results  of  Ethnology."    Fortnightly  Rev., 

June,  1865. 
Iken.     "  De  Institutis  et  Ceremoniis  Legis  Mosaicae  ante  Mosen." 

Dissertatt.  Phil.  Theol.,  etc.     Leyden,  1749-70. 
Iken.     A7itiquitates  Hebraicae.     Bremen,  1764. 
Iken.     De  Cultti  Quotidiano  Templi.     Bremen,  1736. 
Ilgen.       Die    Wrkunden    des     Jerus.    Tempel-Archivs    in    ihrer 

i/rgestalt.     Halle,  1798. 
Inglis.     Notes  on  Genesis.     Edinb.,  1877. 
Ingram.     Bp.  Colenso'^s  Objections  Answered.     Lond.,  1863. 
Isaac.     Com.  in  Pentatenchiun.     Constan.,  1518. 
Isaac.     Gejierations  of  Jsaac  (Com.) .     Amsterd.,  1708. 
Isaacs.     Custotns,  Pites,  eic,  of  the  Jews.     2d  ed.      Lond.,  1836. 
"Israel  im  Lichte  d.  Neuen  Testaments."   Zeitsch.f.  Kirch.  Wiss., 

etc.,  Heftx.,  1883. 
Jacobus.     Notes  Crit.,  etc.,  on  Genesis.     New  York,  1865. 
Jacobus.     Notes  on  Exodus.     New  York,  1874. 
Jacolliot.     La  Genhe  de  rHimia^iitc.     Paris,  1880. 
Jaeger.     "  Modern     Conception     of    the    Development     of     the 

Religion  of  Israel."     Am.  Church  Review,  July,  1883. 
Jahn.     Einleit.  in  d.  Gottlichen  B'ucher  d.  Alt.    Testatnents.     2te 

Aufl.     1802. 
Jahn.     Hist,  of  Hebrew  Co/nmonwealth.     3d  ed.     Lond.,  1840. 
Jahn.     Bib.  Archcsology.     5th  ed.     New  York,  1859. 
Jahn.     "  Beitrage  zur  Vertheidigung  der  Echtheit  d.  Pentateuchs." 

BengePs  Archivf.  d.  Theologie,  etc.,  1818-19. 
James.     Moise  ei  Darwin.     Paris,  1882. 
Jamieson.     Authentic,  of  the  Pent.  History.     Lond.,  1802. 
Jamieson,  R.  (Fausset  and  Brown).     Com.  on  the  O.  and N.  Tests. 

4  vols.     New  York,  1875. 
Jamieson,  R.     The  Pentateuch  and  Book  of  Joshua.     Phil.,   i860. 
Jarrel.     Old  Test.  Ethics.     Greenville  (Texas),  1882. 
Jatho.     Blickein  d.  Bedeutjingd.  Mos.  Ctdtus.     Hildesheim,  1876. 
Jatho.       Grundzuge  d.  Alttes't.  Chronol.     /bid.,  18^6. 
Jenisch.     Sollte  Religion  dem  Menschenjemals  entbehrlich  werden  ? 

Berlin,  1797. 
Jerusalem.     Brief e  ueber  d.  Mos.  Schriften.     Braunschw.,  1783. 
Jewish  Reply  to  Colenso.     Lond.,  1865. 
Johannsen.     Die  Kosmogotiischen  Ansichten  der  Inder  u.  Hebrder, 

etc.     Altona,  1883. 
Johlson.     Die  PYinf  B'ucher  Mosis.     Frankfurt,  183 1. 
Johnson,  F.     "  Theistic  Evolution."    Andover  Rev.,  April,   1884. 
Johnson,  F.     "  The  Curse  upon  Nature "  (Gen.  iii.   14-19).     Bap- 
tist Quart.  Review,  April,  1884. 
Johnson,  J.  B.     Structjire  and  Devel.  of  the  Bible.     Lond.,   1877. 


Literature  of  the  Pentateuch.  439 

Johnson,  S.      Oriental  Religions  and  their  Relation  to   Universal 

Religion.     Loncl.,  1879. 
Johnstone,  F.      Vindieation  of  Book  of  Gen.     Lend.,  1838. 
Johnstone,  W.  H.     Israel  after  the  Flesh.     Lond.,  1850. 
Johnstone,  W.  H.     Israel  in  the  World.     Lend.,  1854. 
Jones,  J.  F.     Egypt s  Biblical  Relations,  &X.C.     Lond.,  i860. 
Jones,  W.     Honiilct.  Coin,  on  the  Book  of  Numbers.     Lond.,  1880. 
Josephus,  The  Works  of.     Trans,  by  Whiston.     Baltimore,   1839. 

Editions  of  the  original   text:    Ittig,   Leipz.,    1691  ;  Hudson, 

Oxf.,  1720;  Havercamp,  Amst.,  1726;  Oberthiir,  Leipz.,  1782- 

85;  Richter, /^/V/.,  1827  f . ;  Dindorf,  Paris,   1845-47;  Bekker, 

Leipz.,  1855-56. 
Jost.     Geschichted.  yudenthums  u.  seiner  Secten.     3  Bde.     Leipz., 

1857-63. 
Jouet.     Hist,  des  Religions  de  totes  les  Royaumes  du  Monde.    6  vols. 

Paris,  1724. 
Joule.     Notes  on  Leviticus.     Lond.,  1879. 
Jukes.     Law  of  Offerings  (l.ev.  i.-vn.).     Lond.,  1854. 
Jukes.     Types  of  Genesis  considered.     Lond.,  1857. 
JUlicher.     "  Die   Quellen  von   Ex.   vii.    8-xxiv."      fahrblicher  f. 

Prot.  Theologie,  Hefte  1,2,  1882. 
Junius  (du  Jou).     Analysis  Expos,  in  Petitateitch.      1604. 
Junilius.     De  Partibiis  Legis  Divinae.     Paris,  1556. 
Jurieu.     Histoire  Critique  des  Dogmes  et  des    Ctdtes.     Amsterd., 

1704;  Lond.,  1705. 
JuynboU.     Cornin.  in  Hist.  Gentis  SamaritancE. 
Kaiser.     De  Clierubis  Mosaicis.     Erlangen,  1827. 
Kaiser.     Com.  in  Priora  Geneseos  Capita.     Nurnb.,   1829. 
Kalisch.     Hist .  and  Crit .  Commentary  on  the  Old  Test.     Genesis, 

Lond.,  1858.     Ex.,  1855.     Lev.,  1867-72. 
Kalisch.      Bible  Studies.      Part  i.,    The    Prophecies   of   Balaam. 

Lond.,  1877. 
Kalkar.     Cantici  Deborae  Interpret  alio.     Copenh.,  1883.     By  the 

same  author  an  Exeget.  Handbuch  (in  Dutch)  to  the  Old  Test. 

Vol.  i..  Gen. -Lev.     Ibid.,  1836. 
Kalthoff.     Handb.  d.  Hebrdischen  Alterth'umer.     Miinster,  1840. 
Kalthoff.     Jus  Matrimonii  Veterum  Indorum  cum  eodem  Hebrae- 

orum  Jure  subinde  Comparatum.     Bonn,  1829. 
Kiimpf.     •' Ueber  die  Bedeutung  des  Wortes  'Sabbath'  im  Penta- 
teuch."    Monatschrift f.  Gesch.  u.Wiss.d.  Judenthums,  1862, 

p.  144-     • 
Kamphausen.      "  Bemerkungen  liber   die    Stiftshiitte."      Stud   u. 

Kritiken,    1858,  p.   97;   1859,    P-  ^i°-      Replied  to  by  Fries, 

ibid.,  p.  103. 
Kamphausen.    Die  Chronologie  d.  Hebrdischeft  Kotiige.    Bonn,  1883. 
Kamphausen.     Das  Lied Mosis.     Leipz.,  1862. 
Kamphausen.     "  Bemerkungen  iiber  cinigc  Stella   d.    4   Cap.    der 

Genesis."     Stud.  u.  Kritiken,  1861,  i. 
Kamphausen.     Review  of  Riehm's  Comment,  dc  Natura  et  Notione 

Symb.  Cheruborum.     Ibid.,  1864,  iv. 


440        TJlc  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Kanne.     Biblische    Untersicchungen    u.    Atislegung   mit    u.    ohnt 
Polcmik  (contests  Vater's  views).     1819,  p.  79;   1820,  p.  72. 
Reviews  De  Wette's  Einlcit.,  1820,  pp.  1-72. 
Kanne.     Erste  Urkitnden  d.  Geschichte,  etc.     Frankfurt,  1808. 
Kapp.     UrspniJig  der  Menschen  u.    V'olker  nach  d.  Mos.   Genesis. 

Nurnb.,  1829. 
Karch.     Die  Mos.  Stiftshutte,  etc.     2  Bde.     Wurzburg,  1876. 
Karlstadt.    See  Carlstadt. 
Kaulen.     Einleitimg  in  d.  Heil.  Schrift.  A.  71.  N.  Test.     Freiburg, 

1876-82. 
Kaulen.     Die  Sprachverwirrung  zu  Babet.     Mainz,  1 861. 
Kautzsch.     See  Muhlau. 
Kayser,  A.     Das  Vorexilische  Buck   d.    Urgeschichte  Is.    u.   seine 

Erweiternng.     Strassb.,  1874. 
Kayser,  A.      "Der  Gegenwartige   Stand   d.    Pentateuch    Frage." 
Arts,  in  Jahrbucherf.Frot.  Theologie,  1 881,  pp.  326,  520,  630. 
Kayser,  F.     "  Ueber  d.  Theol.    Lehre  d.   Alten  Aegypter."     Der 

Katkotik,  1882,  p.  616. 
Keary.     Dawn  of  History.     Lond.,  1878. 

Keerl.     Schopfungsgesch.  u.  d.  Lehre  v.  Paradies.     Basel,  1861. 
Keerl.     Einheit  der  Bibt.  Urgeschichte.     Basel,  1863. 
Keil.     Der  Tenipcl  Salomons.     Dorpat,  1839. 
Keil.     Apologia    Mosaicae    Traditionis    de  Mundi   Hominumque 

Originibus  Exponentis.     Dorpat,  1838. 
Keil.     Lebrbuch  d.  Historisch.  Krit.  Einleitungind.  Kan.  u.  Apok. 
Schriften  d.  Alt.  Test.     3te  Aufl.     Frankfurt,  1873.     In  Eng- 
lish, Edinb.,  1873. 
Keil.     Apologet.    Versuch  uber  d.   Bucher  d.    Chronik.      Berlin, 

1833. 
Keil.      "  Abhandlung    iiber    die    Gottesnamen    im    Pentateuch." 

Zeitsch .  f.  Lidher.  Theologie,  1 85 1 ,  p .  2 1 5 . 
Keil.     "  Die  Opfer  des  Alt.  Test,  nach  ihrer  Symbol,  u.  Typischen 

Bedeutung."     Ibid.,  1856,  iv. ;  1857,  i.,  ii.,  iii. 
Keil  (and  Franz  Delitzsch).     Biblischer  Com.  uber  das  Alt.   Test. 
Com.  on  the  Pentateuch  by  Keil.    On  Gen.  and  Ex.,  3te  Aufl., 
1878;  Lev.,  Numb.,  and  Deut.,  2te  Aufl.,  1870. 
Keil.     Handbuch  d.  Bibl.  Archliologie.     Frankfurt,  1875. 
Kelle.     Vorurtheilsfreie  Wurdigung  der  Mos.   Schrtften.      Frei- 
burg, 181 1. 
Kemink.     Com.  de  Cartnine  Deborae.     Trajecti  ad  Rhenum,  1840. 
Kennedy.     Chronol.  of  Eive Books  of  Moses.     Lend.,  1762. 
Kennedy.     The  Pentateuch  :  its  Age  and  Origin.     Lond.,  1884. 
Kennicott.     A  Short  Introd.  to  Hebrew  Criticism.     Lond.,  1774. 
Kennicott.     Vetus  Test.  Hebraicmn  cum  Variis  Lectionibus.  Oxford, 

1776-80. 
Kenrick.     Hist,  of  Phcsnicia.     Lond.,  1855. 
Kern.     "  Ueber  die    Eherne    Schlange."     BengePs  ^r^/^/7/ /.    die 

Theologie,  etc.,  1882,  p.  396. 
Kidder.     Com.  on  the  Pentateuch.     2  vols.     Lond.,  1694. 
Killisch.     Versuch  einer  Kritik  d.  erst  en  B.  Mosis.     Berlin,  1841 


Literature  of  the  PentateuclL  441 

Kimchi.     Com.  ziir  Genesis.     Ed.  by  Ginsburg.     Pressburg,  1842. 

Kimchi.     Co?/!,  in  Oinnes  V.  T.  Libros.     Gotha,  1713. 

Kingsley.     The  Gospel  of  the  Pentateuch.     Lond.,  1854. 

Kinns.     Moses  and  Geology.     3d  ed.     Lond.  and  New  York,  1882. 

Kircher.     Area  Noe.     Amsterd.,  1675. 

Kircher.     Turris  Babel.     Amsterd.,  1679. 

Kirsch.     Pentat.   Syr.   ex  Polyglott.   Angl.   Sziimna    Fide    edidit. 

Hof,  1787. 
Kittel.     "  Die  Neueste  Wendung  der  Pentateuch-Frage."     Studieti 

aus  Wihteniberg,  1881-82. 
Kitto.     A  CyclopcEdia  of  Bib.  Literature.     3d  ed.     3  vols.     Lond., 

1869-70. 
Kitto.     The  Tabernacle  ajid  its  Furniture.     1849. 
Kitto.     Hist,   of  Palestine  from  the  Patriarchal    Age.     Edinb., 

1843. 
Klaiber.     Das  Pri'esterliche  Orakeld.  Israeliten.     Stuttg.,  1865. 
Klee.     La  Deluge,  ^ic.     Paris,  1847. 
Kleimenhagen.     ISfatur  d.   Geistes  nach   d.   Mos.   Lehre.     Leipz., 

1878. 
Klein,  G.     "  Die  Totaphoth  nach  Bibel  u.  Tradition."    Jahrb'ucher 

f.  Prot.  Theologie,  vii.,  p.  666. 
Klein,  S.     Guide  du  traducteur  du  Pentateuque.     Colmar,  1852. 
Kleinert.     Das  Deuteronomiuni  und  d.  Deuteronomiker.     Leipz., 

1872. 
Kleinert.     "  Religionsgesch.     Studien   zur    Theorie   des    Opfers." 

Stud.  u.  Kritiken,  1874. 
Kleinert.     See  Hertwig. 
Klemm.     Allgem.  Culturgeschichte  d.  Menschheit .    10  Bde.    Leipz., 

1843-52. 
Klostermann.     "Das  Lied  Mose  u.  das  Deuteronomiuni. ""     Stud. 

u.  Kritiken,  1871,  p.  249;   1872,  pp.  230,450. 
Klostermann.      "  Ezechiel.     Ein  Beitrag  zu   besserer   Wiirdigung 

seiner  Person  u.  s.  Schrift."     Stud.  7(.  Kritiken,  1877,  p.  391. 
Klostermann.     "  Beitrage   zur   Entstehungsgeschichte   des    Penta- 

teuchs."     Zeitsch.f.  Lilt  her.  Theologie,  1877,  p. 401. 
Klostermann.     "  Kalendarische  Bedeutungdes  Jobeljahres."  Stud. 

u.  Kritiken,  1880,  p.  720. 
Knappert.     Religion  of  Israel.     From  the  Dutch.     Lond.,  1877. 
Kneppelhout.     De  Re  Cibaria  Vet.  Hebraeorum.  Utrecht,  1768-69. 
Kneucker.     "  Philistaer."     Schenkel's  Bibel-Lex. 
Knight.     Pe7it.  Narrative  Vindicated.     New  York.     Wiley. 
Knobel.     Die  BYtcher  N'umeri,  Deuteronomium  u.  Josua  erkldrt 

{Kurzgefasstes  Kxegct.  Handb.  zum  Alt.  Test.).    Leipz.,  1861. 

A  new  edition  is  in  preparation  by  Dillmann. 
Knobel.     Die  Volkertaf el  der  Genesis.     Ciicsscn,  1850. 
Knox.     Races  of  Men.     2d  ed.     Lond.,  1862. 
Knowles.     Observations  on  Div.  Miss,  of  Moses.     Lond.,  1763. 
Kohler.     Lehrbuch   d.   Bibl.    Geschichte   d.  Alt.    Test.     Erlangen, 

1875  ff- 
Kohler.     De  Prommciatione  ac  Vi  Sac.  Tetragram.     /b/d.,  1864. 


442       The  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Kohler.     Der  Segen  Jacobs  untersucht  it.  erklart.     Berlin,  1867. 

Kohn.     De  Pentateiicho  Safuaritano.     Leipz.,  1865. 

Kohn.     Saiiiar.  Sttidien.     Breslau,  1868. 

Kohut.     D.  Persische  Pentateiichi'ibersetsjmg.     Leipz.,  1871. 

Kolb.     Cidturgesch.  d.  Menschheit.     2te  Aufl.     Leipz.,  1872. 

Konig,  F.  E.     Die  HauptproblcDted.  Altisraelit.  Religionsgeschichte 

gegen'i'iber  den  EiitwickelitngstJieoretikern.     Leipz.,  1884. 
Konig,  F.  E.     De  Criticae  Sacrae  Argument o  e  Linguae  Legibus 

Repetito.     Treats  Gen.  i.-xi.     Leipz.,  1879. 
Konig,  F.  E.     "  Beitraigezur  Bibl.  Chronologic. "  Zeitsch.  f.  Kirch. 

\Viss.,  etc.,  1883,  p.  281. 
Konig,  F.  E.     Der  Offenbaru7igsbegriff  des  Alten  Testafnents.     2 

Bde.     Leipz.,  1882. 
Konig,  F.  E.     Falsche  Extreme  d.   neueren  Kritik  d.  A.    Testa- 
ments.    Leipz.,  1885. 
Konig,  J.     Das   Alter    u.   die    Entstehungsweise    d.  Pentateuchs. 

Freiburg,  1884. 
Konig,  L.     Alttest.  Studien.     Berlin,  1839. 
Koppe.     Israelitas  non  215  sed  430  Annas  in  Egypto  commoratos 

esse  efficitiir.     Getting.,  1777. 
Kbppen.      Versuch  zur  Bestimnuing  d.    Verhiiltniss  einer  Offenba- 

rung zu  d.  Menscheti.     Getting.,  1797. 
Kosters.     Historie-beschoziwitig  van  d.  Detderonotnist ,   etc.     Ley- 
den,  1868. 
Krall.     Studien  zur  Gesch.  d.  Alten  Aegypten.     Wien,  1884. 
Kranold.     De  Anno  Hcbraeorutn  Jubilaeo.     Getting.,  1838. 
Krause.      Tabernacle  ajid  Priest/tood.     Lond.,  1879. 
Krehl.     Religion  die  Vorislatnischeti  Araber.     Leipz.,  1863. 
Krieg.     Monotheistnus  d.  Offenbarung  u.  d.  Heidenthtim.     Mainz, 

1880. 
Krummacher       VVanderungen  Is.   durch  d.    Wuste  nach  Kanaan. 

Elberfeld,   1834. 
Krummacher.     Paragraphen  zur  Heil.  Geschichte.'  Berlin,  1818. 
Krummel.     Religion  d.  Alt.  Aegypter.     Heidelb.,  1883. 
Kuebel.     Soc.   u.    Volkwirthschaftliche  Gesetzgebung  d.  Alt.    Test. 

Wiesbaden,  1870. 
Kuebel.     Alttest.  Gesetz  u.  seine  Urkutide.     Stuttg.,  1857. 
Kuenen.     "  Ezekiel."     Modern  Rev.,  Oc\..,  \%'&\. 
Kuenen.     De  Profeten  en  de  Profctie  onder  Israel.     Leyden,  1875. 
Kuenen.     Prophets  and  Prophecy  in  Israel.     Lond.,  1877. 
Kuenen.     The    Religion    of  Israel.     From    the    Dutch.     3   vols. 

Lond,  1874. 
Kuenen.     De  Vijf  Boeken  van  Moses.     Leyden,  1872.     Numerous 

articles  of  his  relating  to  Pent,  criticism  have  appeared  in  the 

Theol.  Tijdschrift  since  1870. 
Kuenen.     "  Jahve  and  the  '  other  Gods.'  "     Theolog.  Review,  July, 

1876. 
Kuenen.      Volksgodsdiettst  en  Wereldgodsdienst .     Leyden,  1882. 
Kuenen.     National  Religions  and  Universal  Religions.     Lond.  and 

;^ew  York,  1882. 


Literature  of  the  Pentateuch.  443 

Kuenen.     Petit,   and  Book    of  Josh.     Ed.   by   Colenso.     Lond., 

1865. 
Kuenen.     Historisch-Krit.    Onderzoek  naar  het   Ontstaan   en   de 

Verza?ncling  van   de   Boeken   des   Ouden    Verbonds.      Bd.    i. 

Leyden,  1861. 
Kliinol.     Gesch.  d.  J'lldischen  Volkes  von  Abraham.     Leipz.,  1791. 
Kuhl.     Anflinge  d.  Mcnschengeschlcchts,  &\c.     Mainz,  1876. 
Kiiper.     Das  Priesicrthum  d.  Alt.  Bundes.     Berlin,  1866. 
Kurtz.     DasMos.  Opfcr.     Mitau,  1842. 
Kurtz.     Der  Alttest.  Opfcradtus.     Ibid.,  1862. 
Kurtz.     Sacrificial  Worship  of  the  Old  Test.     Edinb.,  i863_. 
Kurtz.     "  Praliminarien     zu     einer    Construction    der    Hail.    Ge- 

schichte."     Zeitsch.  f.  Ltdher.  Theologie,  1842-43. 
Kurtz.     Geschichte  des  Alt  en  Bundes.     3  Bde.     Mitau,  1848  ff. 
Kurtz.     History  of  the  Old  Testament.     3  vols.     Phil.,  1859. 
Kurtz.     Die  Ehen  d.  S'ohne  Gottes.     Mitau,  1857. 
Kurtz.     Die  S'ohne  Gottes.     Ibid.,  1858. 
Kurtz.     Bib&l  u.  Astrono/nie.     ste  Aufl.     Berlin,  1865. 
Kurtz.     The  Bible  and  Astronomy.     Phil.,  no  date. 
Kurtz.     Beitrdge  zur  Vertheidigung  n.  Begriindiing  der  Einheit  des 

Pentatenchs.     I.  Nachweis  der  Eitiheit  von  Gen.  i.-iv.     Ko- 

nigsb.,  1844.     II.  Die  Einheit  d.  Genesis.     Berlin,  1846. 
Kurtz.     Lehrbiuh  d.  Heil.  Geschichte.     13  Aufl.     Konigsb.,  1874. 
Kurtz.     Znr  Symbolik  d.  Mos.Stiftshutte.     Leipz.,  1851. 
Kurtz.     '•  Ueber  die  Symbol.  Dignitat  des  in  Numb,  xix.,  Verord- 

niten  Ritus."     Stud.  u.  Kritiken,  1846,  iii. 
Kurtz.     "  Ueber  die    Symbol.    Dignitat  d.    Zahlen    an   der   Stift- 

shiitte."     Idem,  1844,  ii. 
Kurtzgefasstes  Handb.   zum   Alt.    Test.     (See  Knobel   and    Dill- 

mann.)     Leipz.,  from  1838. 
Knotel.     System  d.  A£gypt.  Chronologie.     Leipz.,  1857. 
Labhardt.      Quae  de   Jiidaeorum   Origine   Judicaverint    Veteres. 

[Augsburg],  1 88 1. 
Laborde.     Commentaire  Geographique  sur  VExode  et  les  IVombres. 

Paris,  1842. 
Lacour.     See  Renard. 

Ladd.     Doctrine  of  Sacred  Scripture.     2  vols.     New  York,  1883. 
Ladd.     "  Cherubim."     BibliothecaSac,  xxxiii.  p.  32. 
Lagarde.     Genesis  Graece,  etc.     Leipz.,  1868. 
Lagarde.     Vet.  Testamenti  ab  Origine  Recensiti  Fragmenta  apud 

Syros  Servata    Quinquc.     It   contains  Ex.  and  Numb.,  etc., 

accord,  to  Mss.  found  in  Lond.  and  Paris.     Getting.,  1880. 
Lagarde.     Materialicn  zur  Kritik   u.    Geschichte   d.    Pentatettchs. 

Leipz.,  1867. 
Lagarde.     "The   meaning    of    'Jahve.'"      Trans,    by    A.    Duff. 

Bibliotheca  Sac,  xxxv.  p.  544.     It  originally  appeared  in   1874 

as  appendix  to  Lagarde's  ed.  of  Jerome's  Psalter. 
Lagarde.     The  Question,  ll'hether  Marriage  with  a  Deceased  wife'' s 

Sister  is  or  is  not  Prohibited  in  the  Mosaic  IVrititigs,  Answered 

Gottingen,  1882. 


444       T^^^  Pentateuch  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Lamy.     De  Tabernaculo  Foederis.     Paris,  1720. 

Lamy.     Traite  Hist,  de  VAncienne  Pdque  des  Juifs.     Paris,  1693. 

Lambert.     Le  Deluge  A fosdique.     Paris,  1868. 

Land.     Dispntatio  de  Carmine  yacobi.     Rotterdam,  1858. 

Lange,  C.  G.     Versuch  einer  Jlarmonie  d.    Heil.   u.   Profanscri' 

bentenind.  Geschichte  d.  Welt.     Baireuth,  1774-80. 
Lange,  G.  P.     See  Theologisch-Homiletisches  Bibelwerk  and  Com- 

t)ientary. 
Langfelder.     Symbolik  d.  JtidenthutHs .     Klausenb.,  1876. 
Langhans.     Handb.  d.  Bibl.  Gesch.  11.  Literatur.     Bern.,  188 1. 
Laniado.      Glossa  Magna  in  PoitatencJnmi.     Ven.,  1596. 
Larsow.      Genesis  Uebersetzt  u.  Erklixrt.     Berlin,  1843. 
Laurie.      "The  Bible  and  Assyr.  Inscriptions."    Bibliotheca  Sac., 

xiv.  147. 
Lauth.     Geschichtl.  Ergebnisse  d.  Aegyptologie.     Munchen,  1869. 
Lauth.     Moses  der  Ebrder.     Ibid. 

Lavauer.     Conference  de  la  Fable  avec  PHistoire  Saiftte.    Paris,  1730. 
Layfaye.     Histoire   du    Culte  des  Divinites  d''Alexandrie.     Paris, 

1884. 
Leathes.     Structure  of  the  Old  Test.     Lond.,  1873. 
Leclercq.     Histoire  de  la  Divination   dans  V Antiquite .     Tome   2. 

Les  Sacerdoces  Divinat aires.     4  vols.     Paris,  1882. 
Le  Clerc.      Coin,  in  V.  Eibros  Alosis  Historicos.     Tubing. ,  1733. 
Lecointre.     La  Campagne  de  Mdise  pour  la  Sortie  d''Egypte.    Paris, 

1882. 
Ledrain.     Histoire  d'' Israel.     Part  i,  Paris,  1879.     Part  2,  1882. 
E Antiquite  Devoilee  au  Moycn  de  la  Genhe,  etc.     Paris,  1808. 
Lee,  F.     Epistolary   Discourse    concerning   the    Books    of  Ezra, 

Gemdne  and  Spurious.     Lond.,  1722. 
Lee,  S.     Vetus  Test.  Syi'iace  .  .  .  ad fidem  Codicutn  MSS.  etnen- 

davit.     Lond.,  1824. 
Lee,  S.  A.     "  Truth  of  Mos.  Records."     Nat.  Magazine,  vii. 
Lef^vre.     Religions  et  Mythologies  Comparces .     Paris,  1878. 
Lehmann.     Das  Gesetz  IsraeVs.     Mannheim,  1845. 
Le  Mercier.     In  Genesin  Com.     Geneva,  1598. 
Lemme.     Religioiisgesch.  Bedeutung  d.  Dekalogs.     Breslau,  1880. 
Lemoine.     Defence  of  Sacred  Hist,  of  the  Old  Test.     Lond.,  1753. 
Lemoine.      Vindicat.  of  Literal  Account  of  Fall.     Lond.,  175 1. 
Lengerke.     Kendan.    Volks-und  Religionsgeschichte  Israels.      Ko- 

nigsb.,  1844. 
Lenormant.     "  The  First  Sin."     Contemp.  Review,  Sept.,  1879. 
Lenormant.     "  The  Deluge."     Ibid.,^o\.,  iSijc). 
Lenormant.     "Genealogies  bet.   Adam   and  the  Deluge."    Ibid., 

April,  1880. 
Lenormant.     "  Ararat  and  Eden."    /^/^.,  Sept.,  188 1. 
Lenormant.     La    Genhse ;    avec    Distinction    des    Iilements    Con- 

stitiUifs  dji  Texte.     Paris,  1883. 
Lenormant.     La  Genhse,  Traductioji  d''apris  PHebreu,  etc.     Paris. 

1883. 
Lenormant.     Les  Origines  de  V Histoire.     3d  ed.     Paris,  1882-83 


Literature  of  the  Pejitateuch.  445 

Lenormant.     The  Begimtmgs   of  History.     (Trans,    from  2d  edo 

by  F.  Brown.)     New  York,  1882. 
Lenormant.     Les    Sciences    Occultes   in   Asie;   La  Magie  chez  les 

Chaldcens,  etc.     Paris,  1874. 
Lenormant.     C/ialdccan  Magic.     Lond.,  1877. 
Lenormant.     Les  Prciiiiercs  Civilisations.     Paris,  1874. 
Lenormant.     Histoire  xlncienne  de  V  Orient  jiisqiC   aux  Giierres 

Mcdiqnes.     Paris,  1881-83. 
Leo.     Gescliichte  dcs  J'udiscJioi  Staates.     Berlin,  1828. 
Leo.     Lehrb.    d.    Universal-GcscJnchte.     3te  Aufl.     Halle,  1849. 
Lepsius.     Ucber  die  xxii.  Aegyp.  Konigsdynastie.       Berlin,  1856. 
Le  Savoureux.     "  Le  Premier  Mot  de  la  Bible."     Rev.    Theologiqne, 

Juill.,  1878. 
Lessing.     Beitrage  zur   Gesch.   u.  Liter atur     (contains    so-called 

"  Wolfenblittel  Fragments  ") .     Braunschw.,  1773  ff. 
Lester.     The  Pre- Adamite.     Phil.,  Lippincott. 
Leven.     D  Hygiene  des  Israelites.     Versailles,  1884. 
Levi.     Rites  and  Ceremonies  of  the  Jews.     Lond.,  without  date. 
"  Lev.  xi.   3-7  and  Deut.  xiv.    6-8.'"     Jour,  of  Sac.  Lit.,  xxxv'n. 
Levy.     "  Althebra.  Siegelsteine  nachgewiesen."    Zeitsch.  d.  Deut. 

Mo}-genldnd.  Gesellschaft,  xi.  p.  318. 
Lewis,  T.     The  Six  Days  of  Creation.     New  York,  1879. 
Lewis,  T.     The  Bible  and  Science.     Schenectady,  1856. 
Lewis,  T.     Nature  and  the  Scriptures.     (Vedder  Lectures.)     New 

York,  1875. 
Lewis,  Th.     Antiquities  of  the  Heh-  Republic.     Lond.,  1724-25. 
Leydecker.     De  Rcpitblica  Hebraeorum.     Amsterd.,  1704. 
Leyrer.     "  Stiftshutte.'"    Htrzog'?, Redl-Encyk.   isteAufg.    "  Reini- 

gung."    Ibid. 
Liber    Librorum ;    Structure,   Limitations,    and   Purpose.      New 

York,  1867. 
Lichtenberger.     Encyclopedic  des  Sciences  Religieuses.  Paris,  18771!. 
Lieblein.     Egyptian  Religion.     Leipz.,   1884. 
Lightfoot.     Observations  0)1  the  Book  of  Genesis.     Lond.,  1642. 
Lightfoot.      Collatio  Pent.  Heb.  cum  Samaritico.     Lond.,  1660. 
Lightfoot.     Gleanings  out  of  the  Book  of  Exodus.     Lond.,  1643. 
Lighifoot.     Horae  Hebraicae.     Camb.,  1648.     In  English.     4  vols. 

Oxford,  1859.     Ed.  Carpzov,  Leipz.,  1684. 
Lilly.     Ancient  Religion  and  Modern  Thought.     Lond.,  1884. 
Lindemann.     Gescliiclde der  Meinung iilterer  u.  neuerer  I'olker.   .   . 

von  Gott,  Religion  ti.  Priesterthum.     Stendal,  1784-95. 
Lindgren.     Grundz'iige  der  Geschichte  der  Judischen  Hierarchie. 

Cf.  Stud.  u.  Kritiken,  1830,  p.  946. 
Linton.     Notes  on  the  Book  of  N'und/ers.     Lond.,  1884. 
Lippcrt.     Allg.   Gesch.  des  Priesterthutns.     Bd.  ii.     Berlin,  1884. 
Lippert.     D.  Seelencult  in  seiner  Beziehung  z.  Althebrii.  Religion. 

Berlin,  1881. 
Lipschlitz.     De   Communi  et  Simplici  Humani   Generis  Origine. 

Hamb.,  1864. 
Lisco.     Das  Alt e  Test,  mit  Erkldrungen,  etc.     Bd.  i,  1843. 


446        The  PentateticJi :  Its  Origin  and  StrnctHn'. 

Lisco.     Das  Ceremonialgesetz  d.  Alt.  Testament.     Berlin,  1842. 
Listor.     "  Was  becleutet  im  Mos.  Cultus  d.  Versohnen?  "     Theol. 

Tidskr.,^0.  6,  1878. 
Litton.     The  Mosaic  Dispells  at  ion.     Bampton  Lectures  for  1856. 
Lolinis.     Land  u.  Volk  d.  alien  Hcbrder.     Regensb.,  1844. 
Lolir.     Geschich.   d.   Heil.    ScJiriften   vom   Anfange  der    Dinge. 

Berlin,   1881. 
Looman.     Geschicdencs  der  Israeliten.     Amsterd.,  1867. 
Lonsano.     Krit.  Com.  z.  Pentateuch,  mil  Bemitzung  Zehn  Alter 

Mannschrifte.     Amsterd.,  1659. 
Lotz.     Quest  tones  de  Historia  SaMati.     Leipz.,  1883. 
Louis.     "  Poor  Laws  of  the  Ancient  Hebrews."     Transactions  of 

Soc.  of  Bib.  Archa'ology,  1884. 
Loveland.     "  Authority     of    Moses."       Univer.      Quarterly,    iv. 

196. 
Low.     Graphische  Requisiten  u.ErzeugnissebeidenJtiden.  Leipz., 

1870-71. 
Lowengard.     Jehova   nicht  Moloch  der   Gott.   d.   alien  HebrHer. 

Berlin,  1843. 
Lowman.     Ritual  of  Hebrew  Worship.     Lond.,  1748. 
Lowy.     "  Die  Letzten  Acht  Verse  des  Pentateuchs."     Jiid.  Lit. 

Blatt.,  1 88 1,  No.  29. 
Lubbock.     Prehistoric  Times.     Lond.,  1865. 
Ludwig.      "  Interpretation    der    Schopfung.sgeschichte     bei     dem 

ApologetenTheophilus."     Jahr.f.  Prot.Theologie,  1880,  p.  717. 
Lund.     D.  Alien  J'udischen  Heiligthlimer.     Hamb.,  1695  ff. 
"  L'Unit6  du  Sanctuaire  chez  les  H^breux."     Rev.  de  VHistoire  des 

Religions,  i.,  1880. 
Luther.     Enarrationes  in   Genesin.     See  vols,  i.-xi.  of  the  Latin 

ed.  of  L.'s  works.     Erlangen,  1826-73. 
Luzzatto.     "  Com.  liber  d.  letzten  Abschnitt  d.  Genesis."     Jeschw 

run,  iii.,  1859. 
Luzzatto.     De  Onkelosi  Cald.  Pentateuchi  Versione.      Wien,  1830. 
Lyell.     Antiquity  of  Man.     New  ed.     Lond.,  1863. 
Lynch.     Exodus  of  the  Child,  of  Israel.     Lond.,  1857. 
Lyncken.     "  Sociale    Bedeutung  d.   Mos.    Gesetzes."      Beiveis    d. 

Glaubens,  March-June,  1884. 
Lyon.     "  Results  of  Modern  Criticism."      Old  Test.  Student,  Dec, 

1883. 
Macdonald.     Introd.  to  the  Pentateuch.     2  vols.     Edinb.,  1861. 
Macdonald.     Defence  of  Genesis .     /Z'/c/.,  1856. 
Macgregor.     "  Age  of    the    Pent."      Brit,   and  For.   Ev.    Rev., 

April,  1877. 
Mackay.     Conquest  of  Canaan  (Jos.  i.-xii.).     Lond.,  1884. 
Mackay.     Progress  of  Intellect  in  Relig.  Devel.   of  the  Hebrews. 

2  vols.     Lond.,  1850. 
MacLean.     Jewish  Nature  Worship.     Cincinnati,  1883. 
Maclear.     Book  of  Joshua.      With  Notes,  etc.     Cambridge,   1878. 
MacWhorter.     "  The   Edenic   Period  of  Man."    Princeton   Rev., 

July,  1880. 


Literature  of  the  Pentateuch.  447 

MacWhorter.     "  Jehovah  considered  as  a  Memorial  Name."    Bib- 

liotheca  Sac,  xiv.  p.  98  ;  xvi.  p.  808  ;  xxi.  p.  876. 
Mahan.     Answer  to  Bp.  Colenso.     New  York,  1863. 
Maier,    F.    K.     "  Aben   Esra's  Meinung  iiber  den  Verfasser  des 

Pentateuch."    Stud.  u.  Kritiken,  1832,  iii. 
Maier,  W.     Moses  u.  Christus  oder  das  G'ottl.  Programm  d.  Welt- 

geschichte.     Passau,  1876. 
Maimonide.     De  Cibis  Vititis.     Copenh.,  1734. 
Maimonide.     De    Juribus  Anni    Sepii/ni  et    JiibilcBi.       Frankf., 

1708. 
Maimonides.     Reason  of  tJie  Law  of  Moses.     Lond.,  1827. 
Malan.     Book  of  Ada/n  and  Eve.     From  the  Ethiopic.     Lond., 

1882. 
Mandel.     Todtiing  der  Schlachtthiere  nach.  Is.  Ritus.     Wien,  1883. 
Mangold.     "  Sabbath  u.  Sabbathjahr."     SchenkePs  Bibel-Lex. 
Mannheimer.     ""Der  Mosaismus  im  Gegensatz  z.  Aegypterthum." 

Jild.  Lit.-Blatt,  No.  41,  1878. 
Man''s  Age  in  the  World,  etc.     By  an  Essex  Rector.     Lond.,  1865. 
Marbach.     "  D.  Heilige  Sage  v.  Ursprung  d.  Menschengeschlechts." 

Protest.  Kirchenzeit.,  No.  30,  1878. 
Marbach.     "DasBlut:   eine  Theolog.  Studie."     Zeitsch.  f.   Wiss. 

Theologie,  1866. 
Marck.     In  precipuas  qiiasdatn  partes Pentat.  Co7n.    Leyden,  1713. 
Maresius.     Refiitatio  Fabnlae  Preadamiticae.     Groning.,  1656. 
Marsden.     Influence  of  the  Mos.  Code  on  Legislation.     Lond.,  1862. 
Marsh.     Lectures  on  the  Criticism  of  the  Bible.     Lond.,  1831. 
Marsh.     Authenticity  of  the  Five  Books    of  Moses    Vindicated. 

Camb.,  1792. 
Marshall.     Colenso'' s  Errors  Exposed.     Lond.,  1864. 
Marsham.     Canon    Chronicus  Aegypt.,  Ebr.,   et.    Graec.     Lond., 

1672. 
Marti.     "  Die   Spuren   der   Sogenannten    Grundschrift    d.    Hexa- 

teuchs."     Jahrb'ucher f.  Prot.  Theologie,  1880,  pp.  127,  308. 
Marti.     "Das  Alte  Test,   in  Kritik  u.   Kirche."     Volksblatt  f.  d. 

Ref.  Kirche  d.  Schweiz,  1881,  No.  36-39. 
Martineau.     "  Legislation  of  Pentateuch."     Theol.  Rev.,  ix.  474. 
Marx.     Traditio  Rabbinorum  Veterrima  de  Libroruin  V.  T.  Ordine 

et  Origine  Illustrata.     Leipz.,  1884. 
Marx.     See  Freund. 
Masius.     fosuae  Imperatoris  His  tor ia  Illustrata  at  que  Explicata. 

Antwerp,   1574. 
Maspero.     Geschichte  der  Morgenland.  V'olker  ini  Alterthu/n.      2te 

Aufl.  (Paris,  1875),  Leipz.,  1877. 
Massey.     The  Natural  Genesis  ;  or.  Second  Part  of  a  Book  of  the 

Beginnings,  etc.     Lond.,  1883.     New  York,  1884. 
Matheson.     "Spiritual    Devel.    of    Moses."      Good    Words,    xxii. 
"  Matters  in  Dispute  concerning  the  Old  Testament."   Atn.  Church 

Review,  Oct.,  1884. 
Matthes.     "  Mythen  in   het   Oude    Test."      Theolog.    Tijdschrift, 

March-May,  1877. 


44^       TJi-^  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Strncture. 

Matthes.     "  Het  Richterenboek,"     Theol.  Ttjdschr.,l<iov.,  i?,Zi. 
Matthes.     "  The  False   Prophets   of    Israel."     Mod.   Rev.,   July, 

1884. 
Matthew'' s  Prologues  on  the  Five  Books  of  Moses.     Lond.,   1551. 
Maurer.     Coju.  Gra7nmat.-Hist.   Criticjis  iti    V.  T.     Vol.  i.,  con- 
taining Hist.  Books,  etc.,  Leipz.,  1832-35. 
Maurice.     Patriarchs  and  Lawgivers  of  the   Old  Test.     Lond., 

1867. 
Maurice.     The    Doctrine    of    Sacrifice    deduced  from    Scripture. 

Lond.,  1879. 
Mauritius.     Tract.   Philol.    de    Sortitioite    Veterum,    Hebraeorum 

imprimis.     Basel,  1692. 
Maury.     Croyances  et  Lcgendes  de  VAntiquite.     Paris,  1863. 
Mawer.     Priest  of    War  among  the  Hebrews   (Deut.  xx.   i,  2). 

1 741. 
Maybaum.     Entwickelung  d.  Altis.  Priesterthums .     Breslau,  1880. 
Maybaum.     Entwickelung   d.  Is.  Prophetenthiuns.     Berlin,  1883. 
Maybaum.     "  Zur    Pentateuchkritik."      Zeitsch.  f.    Volkerpsychol. 

71.  Sprachwissenschaft ,  1883,  p.  191. 
Mayer.     "  Urspmng  der  Sieben  Wochen-Tage."    Zeitsch.  d.  Deut- 

schen  Morg.  Gesellschaft,  1883,  p.  453. 
Mayer,  J.     De  Temporibus  Sanctis  et  Festis  Diebus  Hebraeorum. 

Amsterd.,  1724. 
Mayer,  S.     Die  Rechte   der    Israeliten,   Athener,    u.  R'omer,  etc. 

Leipz.,  1862-66.  f^  , 

Mazade.     Sur  I'Origine  PAge  et  VEtat   Critique  d'Pent.  Saviar. 

Geneve,  1830. 
McCaul.     Examinatioji  of  Colenso.     Lond.,  1863-64. 
M'Causland.     Adam  and  the  Adamite.     4th  ed.     Lond.,  1877. 
M'Causland.     Shinar.     Ibid.,  1869. 

M'Causland.     Builders  of  Babel.     New  ed.     Ibid.,  \'i']^. 
McClelland.     A   Brief  Treatise  on  the  Cation,  etc.,    of  the  Holy 

Scriptures.     New  York,  i860. 
McClintock    (and   Strong).      Cyclopcedia   of   Bib.,    Theolog.,   and 

Ecclesiastical  Literature.     10  vols.     New  York,  1867-82. 
McCosh.     Development:   What  it  Can  Do,  &ic.     New  York,  1883. 
Mcllvaine.     "  Moral  Difficulties  of  the  Old  Test."  Bibliotheca  Sac, 

xxxiv.  672. 
Mcllvaine.     "The  Miracle   of  Creation."     Princeton  Rev.,    May, 

1878. 
McLane.     "Speculation  and  the  Bible."      Bibliotheca  Sac,  xviii. 

P-  338- 
McLennan.     "  The  Levirate   and  Polyandry."     Fortnightly  Rev., 

May,  1877. 
McSweney.     "  The  Bible  and   Assyr.  Discoveries."     The  Month, 

XX.    II. 

Mead.     "Examination  of  Ex.  xxxii.  7-1 1."     Journal  of  Soc  fof 

Bib.  Lit.  and  Exegesis,  July-Dec,  1881. 
Mead.     "  Study  of  the  Monuments."     Bibliotheca  Sac,  xxiv. 
Means.     "  Narrative  of  the  Creation  in  Gen."     Ibid.,  xii.  p.  83. 


Literature  of  tJic  P entateiich.  449 

Means.     "Recent  Theories  of  the  Origin    of  Lansfuasfe."     Ibid.. 

xxvn.  p.  162. 
Meier.     Review  of  Ghellany's  Die  Menschenopfer  d.  alt.  Hebriier. 

Stud.  71.  K'ritiken,  1843,  iv. 
Meier.     "  Ueber  die  Eherne    Schlange."     Zeller's   Theolg.    Jahr- 

bi'icher,  1854,  p.  585. 
Meier.     Review  of  Daumer's  Der  Feuer  n.  Molochdiefist.     Stud.  u. 

R'riti/ccii,   1843. 
Meier.     Gesch.  d.  Poetischen  Nationalliteratur  d.  Hebriier.    Leipz., 

1856. 
Meier.     Uebersetsuttg  u.  Erkliiru7ig  d.  Debora-Liedes .     Tubing. , 

1859. 
Meikle.     Edemc  Dispensation.     Lond.,  1850. 

Meiners.     Allg.  Krit.   Gesthichte  der  Religionen.     2  Bde.     Hann- 
over,  i8q6. 
Meiners.     Grundriss  d.  Gesch.  alter  Religionen.     Lemgo,  1785-87. 
Mel .     Grund-Beschreibung  der  StiftshiUte.     Frankfurt,  1 7 1 1 . 
Menard.     Histoire  des  Israelites  d^apr^s  VExeghe  Biblique.     Paris, 

Mendelssohn.     Die  Funf  Bilcher  Mose  iibersetzt .    Berlin,  1780. 
Menken.     "  Die  eherne  Schlange."     Schriften,  vi.,  1858,  p.  349. 
Merrill.     "  The  Assyr.  Monuments."    Bibliotheca Sac.,  xxxii.  320. 
Merx.     Die  Prophetie  d.  Joel  u.  Hire  Auslegcr  (bears  on  the  Pent. 

crit.).     Halle,  1879. 
Merx.     "  Der  Werth  der  Septuaginta  fur  die  Textkritik  des  A.  T. 

am   Ezechiel    aufgezeigt."      Jahrb'uclier  f.    Prot.     Theologie, 

1883,  p.  65. 
Merx.     "  Kritische  Untersuchungen  iiber  die    Opfergesetze,    Lev. 

i.-vii."    Zeitsch.f.  Wiss.  Theologie,  1863,  pp.  41,  164. 
Merx.     See  Tuch.     "Nachwort"  to  his  Co?/ifnentar,  (td.  of  1871. 
Merx.     Archiv  f.  Wiss.  Erforschutig  des  Alt.  Test.     Halle,  1867 

(and  part  of)  1868. 
Messmer.     Geschichte  der  Offenbartmg.     Freiburg,  1857. 
Mestral.      Conunentaire  sur  la  Gcndse.     Lausanne,  1865. 
Mestral.     Com //le ntaire  sur  f  Erode.     Lausanne,  1865. 
Meyer,  C.  W.     Apologie  der  Geschichtlichen  Auffassimg  d.  Histor. 

Bilcher  d.  Alt.  Test,  besonders  des  Pent.     Sulzbach,  181 1. 
Meyer,  E.     "  Kritik  d.   Berichte  iiber  d.   Erobcrung   Paliistinas." 

Zeitsch.f.  Alttest.  IVissenschaft,  i.,  1881. 
Meyer,  E.     Geschichte  d.  Alterthuins.     Vol.  i.     Stuttg.,  1884. 
Meyer  J.     Tractatus  de  Teniporibus  Sacris  et  Testis  Diebus  Hebrae- 

oruni.     Amsterd.,  1698,  1724. 
Mezger.     Histor ia  Sacra  de    Gentis   Heb.,   Ortu,   Progressu,  etc. 

Augsb.,  1700. 
Michaelis,  C.  B.     Dissertat.  de  Poenis  Capitalibus  .  .  .  imprimis 

Hebraeoruvi.     Halle,  1730-49. 
Michaelis,  J.  D.     Einleit.  in  d.  G'dttlichen  Schriften  d.  Alt.  Bundes. 

Hamb.,  1787. 
Michaelis,  J.  D.     Biblia  Hebraica.     Halle,  1720. 
Michaelis,  J.  D.     Das  Mosdische  Recht.     Frankf.,  1770-75. 


450       The  Pejitateiich  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Michaelis,  J.  D.     Coin,  on  the  Laws  of  Moses.     Lond.,  1814. 
Michaelis,    J.    D.     Abhandlungen    von    den    Ehegesetzen    Mosis. 

Getting.,  1755-68. 
Michow.     Urgeschichte  d.  Menschengeschlechts .     Eisleben,  1855. 
Micraelius.     Syntagma  Historiarum  Ecclesiae.     Stettin,  1630. 
Middleton.     Allegor.  and  Literal  Interpret,  of  Gen.  i.-iii.  Lond., 

^752.  .     . 

Mielziner.     Jewish  Law  of  Marriage  and  Divorce.     Cincinnati, 

1884. 
Mielziner.       Verhaltnisse    der   Sklaven   bei  den  Alien   Hebr'dern. 

Leipz.,  1859. 
Miller.      "The    Six    Days."      Southern    Presbyt.    Review.,   Jan., 

1885. 
Milman.     The  History  of  the  Jews.     3d  ed.     Lond.,  1863. 
Mitchell.     "  Ezekiel  and  Leviticus."     Heb.  Student,  i,  2,  1883. 
"  Modern  Theory  of  Deuteronomy."     Christ.  Observer,  Ixxvii.  859. 
Moebius.     Historia  Prophetoi  Bilcami.     Leipz.,  1676. 
Moeller.     Ueber  die  Verschiedenheit  des  Sty  Is  der  Beiden  Hauptur- 

kunden  der  Genesis.     Getting.,  1792. 
Moffat.     "  Antiquity  of  Genesis."     Princeton  Rev.,  xxxiii.  37. 
Moise.     "  Les  Noms  des  Mois  H^breux."     L  'Univers   Israelite, 

No.  9,  Paris,  1881. 
Molchow.     "1st  der  Pentateuch   von   Mosis   verfasst?"     Verlags- 

Magazin,  Ziirich,  1881. 
Moldenhauer.     Zeitrechnungim  B.  d.  Richter.     Hamb.,  1766. 
Mombert.     See  Tyndale. 
Mooar.     "Favorable   References   to  the  Foreign  Element  in  the 

Hebrew  History."     BibliothecaSac,  xxvii.  p.  614. 
Moon.     Pent,  and  Joshua  considered.     Lond.,  1863. 
Moore,  D.     Divine  Author,  of  Pentateuch.     Lond.,  1863. 
Moore,  G.     The  First  Man  and  his  Place  in    Creation.     Lend., 

1866. 
Moreau.     Exam,  of  Colenso''s  Objections.     Lond.,  1863. 
Morin.     Exercitatioties  Ec.   in   utrumque  Samaritanorum  Pefita- 

teuchum.     Paris,  1631. 
Morin.     Prolegom.  zur  Ausgabe  d.  LXX.     Paris,  1628. 
Morison.     Key  to  Gen.-Numb.     Lond.,  1847. 

Mortillet.     Le  Prthistorique  Antiquite  de  VHomme.     Paris,  1882. 
Mortillet.     "La  Religion  Prthistorique."     Rev.  de  PHistoire  des 

Religions.     Janv.-F6vr.,  1883. 
fortimer  and  New^ton.     "  Recent  Criticism  of  the  Bible."     North 

Am.  Review,  April,  1884. 
Mosaic  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch.     Lond.,  1864. 
Mose  ben  Nachmann.     Ueber  d.    Vorzuge  d.  Mos.  Lehre.     Ed.  by 

Jelinek.     Wien,  1872. 
"  Moses,  Colenso  on."     Boston  Rev.,  iii.  190. 
"  Moses,  Character  of."     Christian  Observer,  W.  JT)?)- 
"  Moses,  Div.  Legation  of."     Christian  Observer,  vm.  gi]  xxviii. 

793 ;   Theol.  Repository ,  v.  39,  49,  366. 
Mosler.     Jiidische  Stammverschiedenheit .     Leipz.,  1884. 


Litcrat2irc  of  the  Pentateiick.  45 1 

Motais.     Mo'ise,  la  Science  et  VExeg^se.     Paris,  1882. 

Movers.     Krit.    Ujitersiichung   ubcr    die    Bibl.    Chronik.     Bonn 

1834. 
Movers.     "  Ueber  die    Auffindung  d.    Gesetzbuches  unter  Josia." 

Zeitsch.  f.  Pliilos.  u.  Kathol.  Theologie,  1834-35.     Nos.  12,  14. 
Movers.     Die  PJwnizier.     3  Bde.     Bonn,  1841-50. 
Mozely.     Ruling  Ideas  in  Ea7'ly  Days.     New  York,  1879. 
Mudge.     Tabernacle  of  Test,  in  the  Wilderness.     Lond.,  1861. 
Miihlau.     Liber  Gen.  sine  Punctis  Exscriptus.  Curaverunt  F.  M.  et 

A.  Kautzsch.     Leipz.,  1868. 
MUhlau.     See  Ge.senius. 
Miihlau.     Besitzen  wir  d.  Ursprutiglicheji   Text  d.  Heil.  Schrift.  ? 

Dorpat,  1884. 
Muhlert.     D.  M'dglichkeit  d.  gottlichen  Offenbarung.     Leipz.,  1832. 
Miiller,  CO.    Prolegomena  zn  e.  Wiss.  Mythologie.    Getting.,  1828. 
Muller,  J.     Ur sprung des  Pesach-u.  Mazzothfestis.     Bonn,  1883. 
Miiller,  J.  G.     Wer  sifid  denn  die  Semiten?     Basel,  i860. 
Miiller,  J.  G.     Die  Semiten  in  ihrem   Verhaltniss  zu  Chamiten  u 

Japhiten.     Gotha,   1872. 
Muller,  Max.     hitrod.  to  tJie  Science  of  Religion.     Lond.,  1873. 
Muller,  Max.     Origin  and  Growth   of  Religion  as   Illust.  by  the 

Religions  of  India.     Lond.,  1878. 
Munnell.     "  Genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch."      Christ.  Quarterly 

Rev.,  Jan.,  1884. 
Munter.     Religion  der  Karthager .     2te  Aufl.     Copenh.,  1821. 
Muntinghe.     Brevis  Expositio  Critices  V.  T.     Grbning.,  1827. 
Miirdter.      Kurzgefasste    Gesch.    Bab.    n.    Assyr.   nach  d.   Keil- 

schriftdenkmdlern  mit  besond.  Beriicksichtignng  d.  Alt.  Test. 

Stuttg.,  1882. 
Murphy.     "The  Weekly  Sabbath."     Bibliotheca  Sac,  xxix.  p.  74. 
Murphy.     "  The  Book  of  Deuteronomy."     British  and  For.  Ev. 

Review, ]2.n.,  1878. 
Murphy.     A    Critical  and  Exeget.  Commentary  on   the  Book    of 

Genesis.     Edinb.,  1863;  Andover,  1866. 
Murphy.     Exodus.     Edinb.  and  Andov.,  1866. 
Murphy.     Leviticus.     Ibid.,  1872. 

Murray.     Remarks  on  Gen.  and  Exodus.     3d  ed.     Lond.,  1842. 
Mussy.     L^Hygiine  de  Mo'ise,  etc.     Paris,  1885. 
Nach'tigall.     "  Fragmente   iiber   die   allmahlige   Bildung    der   den 

Israeliten    Heil.    Schriften."      Henke's  Magazin  f.  Religions- 
philosophic,  etc.,  1794-96. 
Nagel.     Dissertat.  de  Calendario  Vet.  Hcbraeorum.     Altdorf,  1764. 
Naville.     The  Store   City  of  Pithoin   and  Route  of  the  Exodus. 

Lond.,  1885. 
Nehringer.     Allgem.  Geschichte d.  Alien  Testaments.     Leipz.,  1717. 
"Nemo."    Alan:  Palccolithic,  Neolithic,  and  several  other  Races 

not  inconsistent  witJi  Scripture.     Dublin,  1876. 
Nesbitt.     Science  of  the  Day  and  Goiesis.     New  York,  1882. 
Nestle.     "Die  Menschliclie  Lebensdaucr  u.  das  Alter  des  Moses." 

Zeitsch.  d.  Deut.  Morgenldnd.  Gesellschaft,  xxxiii.  p.  509. 


452       The  Pentateuch:  Its  Ongin  and  Structure. 

Nestle.      Die  Is.  Eigennatnen  nach  ihrer  Religionsgeschichtlichen 

Bedeutung.     Haarlem,  1876. 
Nestle.     "  El,  Elohim,  Eloa."     Theolog.  Studien  aus  Wilrtefnberg, 

1882,  iv. 
Nestle.     "  Zur  Frage  ob  '  Jehovah  '  Hiphil  sein  konne."     Jahrbb. 

f.  Deutsche  TheoL,  xxiii.  p.  126. 
Neteler.     "Die   Prophet.    Verfasser   d.  Alt.  Test.  BUcher."     Der 

Katholik,  Oct.,  1876. 
Neteler.     Die  Echtheit  d.  Pentatetichs.     Miinster,  1867-71. 
Neteler.     "  Harmonist.  Versuch  liber  Assyr.  u.  Bibl.  Chronologie." 

Tubing.  Quartalschrift,  1874,  iii. 
Neumann.     Die  Stiftsh'utte.     Gotha,  1861. 
Neumann.     "  Die  Wolke  im  Allerheiligsten."    Zeitsch.  f.  Lnther. 

Theologie,  1851. 
Neumann.     "  Die  Opfer  des  Alten  Bundes."    Deutsche  Zeitsch.   f. 

Christl.  VVissenschaft ,  1852-53,  1857. 
Neumann.     Sacra  V.  T.  Salutaria.     Leipz.,  1854. 
Neuville.     "  UEthnologie  et  le  loe  chap,  de  la  Gen^se."     Rev.  des 

Questions  Historiques.     Avril,  1878. 
Nevin.     Notes  on  Exodus.     Phil.,  1873. 

"  Newman  and  Greg  on  the  Old  Test."    North  Brit.  Rev.,  xvi.  119. 
Newton.     The  Book  of  Beginnings :  a  Study   of  Genesis.     New 

York,  1884. 
Newton.     See  Mortimer. 

Nicolai.     De  Sepulchris  Hehraeorum.     Leyden,  1706. 
Nicolai.     Diatrib.    de    Juratnentis    Hebraeorimi,    Graecor.,    etc. 

Frankf.,  1700. 
Nicolas.     "  Le    J^hovisme    Mosaique."    No2iv.    Rev.    de    Theol., 

livr.  4,  1861. 
Niebuhr.     Geschichte  Ass7ir''s  u.  Babels,  tic.     Berlin,  1857. 
Niemeyer.     Characteristik  der  Bibel.     Halle,  1775. 
Niethhammer.     Ueber  d.  Versuch  einer  Kritik  aller  Offenbarung. 

Jena,  1792. 
Nitzsch.     D.  Religionsbegriff  d.  Alten.     Hamb.,  1832. 
Noack.     Die  Pharaonen  i>n  Bibellande.     Leipz.,  1870. 
Noack.     Der  Religiose  Geist  der  Menschheit  in  seiner  Geschicht- 

lichen  Entwickehing.     2  Bcle.     Leipz.,  1850. 
Noldeke.     Die  A/nalekiter.     Getting.,  1864. 
Ndldeke.     "  Bemerk.  iiber  Hebra.  u.  Arab.  Eigennamen."    Zeitsch. 

d.  Dejct.  AlorgenUind.  Gesellschaft,  xv.  p.  806. 
Noldeke.     "Elohim,    El."      Sitzungsbericht  d.  K.  Pr.  Akad.  d. 

Wissenschaft ,  1882,  p.  1175. 
Noldeke.     Die  Alttest.  Literatur.     Leipz.,  1868. 
Noldeke.     Untersuchimg  zur  Kritik  des  A.  Test.     Kiel,  1869. 
Noldeke.     "  Ueber  den  Gottesnamen  El."    Monatsbericht  der  K. 

Akad.  d.  Wiss.  zu  Berlin,  1880,  p.  760. 
Nork.     D.  Sonftencultus  d.  Alten  V'olker.     Heilbron,  1840. 
Nork.     Das    Leben    Mosis    aus    Astrognostischem     Standpunkte 

betrachtet.     Leipz.,  1838. 
Norton.     The  Pentateuch  and  its  Rel.  to   Jewish   and  Christian 

Dispensations.     Lend.,  1863. 


Literature  of  the  Pentateuch.  453 

Notes  on  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy.     2  vols.     Lond.,  1881-82. 
Nowack.     Die  Bedeutung  d.  Hieronymus  f.  d.  Alt  test.   Textkritik. 

Getting.,  1875. 
Nowack.     Die  Assyi- .-Babylonischeii  Keil-Inschriften  u.  das    Alte 

Testament .     Berlin,  1878. 
Nutt.     Sketch    of    Samaritan    History,    Dogma,    and    Literature. 

Lond.,  1874, 
Obermliller.     Die  Entstehnng  d.  Hebr'der.     Wien,  1878. 
Ode.     Dissertat.  de  Anno  HebraeorujH  Jtibilaeo.     Utrecht,  1745- 
Oeder.     Freye  [/ntersuchnngen  ueber  einige  Biicher  d.  Alt.  Test. 

Ed.  by  Vogel.     Halle,  1771. 
Olaster.   .Com.  in  PentateiicJiuni.     Lisbon,  1856-58. 
Olshausen.     "  Eeitrage  zur  Kritik  des  Ueberlieferten  Textes  im  B. 

Genesis."     Monatsbericht  d.  Akad.  d.   Wiss.  zu  Berlin,  June, 

1870. 
"  On  the  Name  Jehovah  and  the  Doct.  of  Ex.  iii.  14."     British  and 

For.  Ev.  Rev.,  Jan.,  1876. 
"On   the   Testimony   of   Language   respecting  the   Unity   of   the 

"      Human  Race."     North  Am.  Rev.,  July,  1867. 
Oort.     "  De  Aaronieden."     Theol.  Tijdschrift,  1884,  p.  289. 
Oort.     Der  Ur sprung  d.  Blutbeschuldigung  bei  den  Juden.     Ley- 
den,  1883. 
Oort.     De  Per icope  Numb,  xxii.-xodv.     Leyden,  i860. 
Oppert.     "  Die  Bibl.  Chronologie  nach  den  Assyr.  Keilinschriften." 

Zeitsch.  d.  Deutschen  Morg.  Gesellschaft,  1869. 
Oppert.     Histoire  des  Empires  de  Chaldte  et  de  VAssyrie.     Paris, 

1865. 
Opwyck.     De  Legibus  Ebraeorum  Forensibus.     Leyden,  1637. 
Orelli.     "  Der  Mosaismus."     Die  Alttest.  Weissaguftg,&\.c.     Wien, 

1882,  p.  141. 
"  Origin  and  Significance  of  Jewish  Sacrifices."    Bibliotheca  Sac, 

xxviii.  p.  145. 
Orth.     "  La  Centralisation  du  Culte  de  Jehovah."    Nouv.  Rev.  de 

Theol.,  D^c,  1859. 
Orth.     "  La  Tribu  L6vi  et  la  Loi."     Ibid.,  p.  384. 
Orton.     "The  Bible  and  Egyptology."     Bib.  Review,  iv.  203. 
Osburn.     Egypt  and  its  Test,  to  the  Bible.     Lond.,  1846. 
Osburn.     Israel  in  Egypt.     2d  ed.     Lond.,  1856. 
Osgood.     "Jesus   Christ  and    the    Newer    School   of   Criticism." 

Baptist  Quaj'terly,  1883,  p.  88. 
Osgood.     "  Prehistoric  Commerce  in  Israel."     Bapt.  Qtiart.  Rev., 

Apr.,  1882. 
Osgood.     "  History  and  Methods  of  Modern  Biblical  Criticism." 

Proceedings  of  Sec.  Autum.  Baptist  Conference.    Boston,  1883. 
Osiandcr.     Cotn.  in  Pentata/chi/m.     Tul)ing.,  1675  flf. 
Osiander.     Coinmcntariiis  in  Jiid.     Tiibing.,  1682. 
Osiander.     Coin,  in  Josuam.     Ibid.,  1681. 
Outram.     De  Sacrificiis.     Amstcrd.,  1678. 
Owen.     A  Short  Introd.  to  Heb.  Criticism.     Lond.,  1774. 
Owen.     Divine  Origi?ial,  etc.,  of  the  Scriptures.     Oxford,  1659. 


454       The  Pentateuch:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Page.     Pretensions  of  Bp.  Colenso  Considered.     Lond.,  1863. 
Pahle.     Gesck.  d.  Oriental.  Alterthums.     Oldenburg,  1864. 
Paine.     The  Tabernacle,  Temple,  etc.     Boston,  1861. 
Palfrey.     The  Jewish  Scriptures  and  Antiq.     Lond.,  184 1,  1848. 
Palmer,  E.  H.     History  of  the  Jewish  Nation.     Lond.,  1874. 
Palmer,  E.  H.     The  Desert  and  the  Exodus.      2   vols.      Lond., 

1871  ;  New  York,  1872. 
Palmer,  E.  H.     The  Negeb.     Lond.,  1871. 
Palmer,  G.     The  Migration  from  Shinar.     Lond.,  1880. 
Palmer,  H.  S.     Ancient  History  frojn  the  Monuments.      Lond 

1878. 
Palmer,  W.     Sacred  and  Egypt.   Chronol.  Harmonized.     2   vols. 

Lond.,  1861. 
Pareau.     Antiq.  Hebraica  breviter  Descripta.     Utrecht,  1817. 
Park.     "  The  Divine  Institution   of  Sacrifice."     Bibliotheca  Sac, 

Jan.,  1876. 
Parker,  F.     Replies  to  Bp.  of  NataVs  Pentatettch.     Lond.,  1864. 
Parker,  J.     The  People's  Bible.     Vol.  i..  Genesis;   vol.  ii.,  Exodus. 

Lond.,  1885. 
Parker,  J.     "  The    Second    Book   of   Moses."      Expositor,   Apr., 

1885,  p.  305. 
Parkes.     "  Compar.    Philol.    as    indicating   the    Antiq.    of   Man." 

Quart.  Jour,  of  Science,  Apr.,  1866. 
Parsons.     See  Holmes. 
Parvish.      Inquiry   into    the    Jewish    afid    Christian    Revelation. 

Lond.,  1739. 
Pastoret.     Histoire  de  la  Legislation.     Paris,  1817. 
Patrick,  Lowth,  etc.     Com.  on  the  Bible.     4  vols.     Lond.,  1849. 
Patrick.     Com.  upon  the  Second  Book  of  Moses.     Lond.,  1697. 
Patrick.     Com.  upon  the  Third  Book  of  Moses.     Lond.,  1698. 
Pattison.     Antiquity  of  Man.     Lond.,  1863. 
Patton.     "  Dogmatic  Aspect  of  Pentateuchal  Criticism."     Presbyt. 

Rev.,  1883,  p.  341. 
Paul.     Analysis  and  Critical  Inter,  of  Genesis.     Edinb.,  1852. 
Paulus.     "  Ueber  die  Anlage  u.  den  zweck  des  Ersten  u.  Zweiten 
Fragments   der  altesten   Mos.    Menschengeschichte."     Neues 
Repertor.f  Bibl.  u.  Morg.  Litter atur,  Th.  2,  p.  209. 
Paulus.     D.    Ur  sprung  d.   Althebra.   Litter  atur  durch  SatnueVs 

Geist  u.  seinen  Prophetenschulen.     Heidelb.,  1822. 
Peabody.     "  Char,  and  Institutions  of  Moses."     Christ.  Exatniner, 

xxi.  I. 
Peabody.     "  Bearing  of  Mod.  Scientific  Theories  on  the  Funda- 
mental Truths  of  Christianity."     Bibliotheca  Sac,  xxi.  p.  710. 
Penrose.     Lectures  on  the  Pentateuch.     Lond.,  1845. 
"  Pent,  and  Book  of  Joshua  Criticised."     Ch.  Remembrancer,  xlv. 

225,  484. 
Pentateuchism   Analytically    Treated.      Vol.    i.,    Genesis.     Lond 

i860. 
Pentateitchus,   Hebr.,    Chald.,   Arab.,   Pers.,   cum    Com.    Jarchi. 
Constantinople,  1546. 


Literature  of  the  Pentateuch.  455 

Pentateuchus ,  cin/i  Targ.  ac  Cofnm.  Jarchi.     Bolog.,  1490. 
Petitateuchus  Hcbraifl-Clialdaio-Persicits-Arabiciis.     1550. 
Pentateiichus  Hebraicus  Hispa/iicKS   ct   Barbaro-GraecKs .      Con- 
stant.; 1548. 
Petermann.     Pentateiichus  Samaritanus,  i.  Genesis.     Berlin,  1872. 
Petermann.     Dc  Diiabus  Pent.  Parapliras.  Chatdaicis.    /^/c/.,  1829. 
Peyr^re.     Sy sterna    Theologicum    ex   Proeadamitarum    Hypothesi. 

Holland,  1655. 
Pfaff.     '*  GegenwJirt.  Stand  d.  Frage  nach  dem  Ursprung  d.  Men- 

schengeschlechts."      Zeitsch.  f.  d.  ges.  Luther.  Theologie,  etc., 

1865,  p.  401. 
PfafF.     D.   Alter   u.    Ursprung  d.   Menschengeschlechts.     Frankf., 

1878. 
Pfaff.     Schopfiingsgeschichte.     2te  Aufl.     Frankfurt,  1877. 
Pfaff.     Die  Neuesten    Theorieen   attf  devi    Gebiete  d.  Sch'dpfungs- 

gescJiichte.     Ibid.,  1868. 
Pfeifer.     Critica  Sacra.     Dresden,  1680;  Altdorf,  1751. 
"  Pharaoh  of  Joseph."  Proceedings  of  Soc.  of  Bib.  Arc/iceot.  ,iSSo-Si . 
Philippi.      "1st    'Jehovah'   Accadisch-Sumerischen    Ursprungs?" 

Zeitsch.  f.  Votlier psychologic,  1883. 
Philippi.     "Zur   Eintheilung    d.    Dekalogs."      Zeitsch.   f.   Kirch. 

li'iss.  u.  A'i re  hitches  Leben,  1881,  Hefte  9,  10. 
Philippson.     D.  Entwickelung  d.   Relig.    Ideen  im    Judenthume. 

Leipz.,  1847. 
Philo.     De  Vita  Mosis.     Prag,  1838.     See,  also,  ed.  of  his  works. 
Pianciani.     Erliuderimgen   znr  Mos.  ScJi'dpfungs-Geschichte.     Re- 

gensb.,  1853. 
Pick.     "A  Collection  of  Various  Readings  of  the   Samar-Pent." 

Bibliotheca  Sac,  1876-78. 
Pickering.     Hist,  of  Races  of  Man.     Lond.,  1850. 
Pioger.     UCEiivre  de  six  Jours,  t\.c.     Paris,  1880. 
Piscator.     Comm.  in  Deuteronomium.     Herborn,  1615. 
Planck.     "  Der  Ursprung  des  Mosaismus."     Zeller's  Tubing.  Theo- 

log.  Jahrbucher ,  1845. 
Planck.     Die  Genesis  d.  Judenthwns.     Ulm,  1843. 
Plumptre.     "  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  Inscriptions  in  their  Bear- 
ing on  the  Old  Testament."     Expositor,  March,  April,  Oct., 

1881. 
Pococke.     Porta  Mosis.     See  ed.  of  his  works  by  Twells.     2  Bde. 

Lond.,  1740. 
Pontas.     Scriptura  S.  ubique  sibi  Constans.      This  is  the  title  of 

Collet's  ed.  of  a    work    by  Pontas    published   in   Paris,  1730. 

It  discusses  the  supposed  contradictions  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Pool.     Annotations  on  t/te  Whole  J>ible.     3  vols.     New  York.  1880. 
Poole.     "  Hebrew  Ethics  in  Evidence  of  the  Date  of  Heb.  Docu- 
ments."    Contenip.  Review,  Apr.,  188 1. 
Poole.     Genesis  of  the  Earth  and  Man.     Lond.,  i860. 
Poole.     Chronol.  of  Ancient  J'lgypt.     Lond.,  185 1. 
Poole.     "  Ancient  Egypt  in  its  Comparative  Relations."     Contevtp. 

Review,  3d  art.,  Aug.,  1881. 


456       TJie  Pentateuch:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Poncet.     JVouv.  Eclaircissetnents  sur  VOrigine  de  la  Pent.  Satnar- 

itams.     Paris,  1760. 
Pond.     "  Author  of  Genesis."     Methodist  Quart.,  xxiii.  601. 
Popper.     D.  Ursprjing  d.  Mo7iotheis)nus.     Berlin,  1879. 
Popper.     D.  Bibl.  Bericht  uber  die  Stiftshutte.     Leipz.,  1862. 
Portal.     Compar.  of  Egyptian  with  Hebrew  Syjnbols.     New  York, 

1875. 
Porter.     The  Pentateuch  and  the  Gospels .     Lond.,  1865. 
Pott.     Mytholog.  Vorstellnngen  v.  l/r sprung  der  V'dlker  n.  Spra- 

chen.     Lemgo,  1863. 
Pott.     Moses  u.  David  keine  Geologen.     Berlin,  1799. 
Pott.     Coni/nottatio  de  Antiq.  Doatmento,  quod  extat  Gen.  ii.  et  Hi. 

Helmstadt,  1789.     2d  ed.,  1796. 
Potwin.     "  Destructive  Analysis  in  Theology."     Bibliotheca  Sac., 

xxix.  p.  419. 
Pratt.     The  Genealogy  of  the  Creation.     Lond.,  1861. 
"  Prehistoric  Man."     Church  Quart.  Review,  July,  1881. 
Preiss.     "  D.   Ursprung  des  Jehovakultus."     Zcitschrift  f.    Wiss. 

Theologie,  1881,  p.  210. 
Pressel.     "  Laubhlittenfest."     Herzog's  Real-Encyk.     iste  Aufl. 
Pressel.     Geographic  u.  GescJiicJite  der  Urzeit.     Nordlingen,  1883. 
Pressens6.     EOrigine  de  la  Morale  et  de  la  Religion.     Paris,  1883. 
Priestley.     Institides  of  Mos.  and  of  the  Hindoos.     Lond.,  1800. 
Priestly.     "  Moses,  Inspiration  of."     Theol.  Repository ,  iv.  27,  123. 
"  Primeval  Hist,  of  the  Old  Test."     Quart.  Review,  lii.  496. 
Pritchard.      Vindiciae  Mosaicae.     Lond.,  1866. 
Proctor.     "  Origin  of  the  Week."      Contemp.  Review,  June,  1879. 
Prout.     "  Recent  Theories  on  the  Pentateuch."     British   Quart. 

Rev.,  Jan.,  1884. 
Pustkuchen.     Urgeschichte  d.  Menschheit.     Lemgo,  1823. 
Pye.     Moses  and Bolingbroke.     Lond.,  1766. 
Pye.     The  Moral  System  of  Moses.     Lond.,  1770. 
Quarry.      Genesis  and  its  Authorship.     Lond.,  1873. 
Rae.     "  Recent  Spec,  on  Prim.  Religion."      Cotitemp.  Rev.,  Oct., 

1880. 
Ragg.     Accord  of  Re^ielation  with  Science.      Lond.,  1856. 
Rainy.     The  Bible  and  Criticism.     Lond.,  1878. 
Ranke,  F.  H.     Untersuchung  i'lber  den  Pentateuch  aus  dem  Gebiett 

d.  Hoheren  Kritik.     Erlangen,  1834-40. 
Ranke,  L.  v.     Universal  History  (Eng.  trans.).     Nevs^  York,  1884. 
Rashi.     In  Pentateiichuin    Com.     Ed.  by  Berliner.      Berlin,  1866. 
Rask.     Die  Aelteste  Hebr.  ZeitrecJinung  bis  Moses.     Copenh.,  1828. 
Raska.     Die  Chronol.  d.  Bibel  im  Einklange  mit  d.  Zeitrechmi7ig  d. 

Aegypter  u.  Assyrer.     Wien,  1878. 
Rau.     Dissertat.  de  Nube  Gloriosa  super  Arcam  Foederis.   Utrecht, 

1760. 
Rauber.     Urgeschichte  des  Menschen.     2  Bde.     Leipz.,  1884. 
Raumer,  G.  W.     D.  Zug  d.  Israeliten  aus  Acgypten  nach  Kanaan. 

Leipz.,  1837. 
Raumer,  R.  v.     D.   Urverwandtschaft  d.  Semit.  u.  Indo-german. 

Sprachen.     Frankf.,  1876. 


Literature  of  the  Pentateuch.  457 

Rawlinson.     "  The  Pentateuch."     Aids  to  Faith, 'LonA.,  i%62. 
RawUnson.     Antiquity  of  Man.     Lond.,    1883.     Cf.     Journat  of 

Cliristian  Pliilos.,  1883,  p.  339. 
Rawlinson.     Tiie  Religions  of  t lie  Ancient  Wortd.     Lond.,   1882; 

New  York,  1883. 
Rawlinson.     History  of  Ancient  Egypt.     2  vols.     Lond.,  188 1. 
Rawlinson.      Egypt    aiid    Babylon,  from    Sacred    and    Profane 

Sources.     New  York,  1885. 
Rawlinson.     Hist.  Evidences  of  the  Truth  of  the  Scripture  Records. 

Lond.,  1859;  Boston,  i860. 
Rawlinson.     Monarchies  of  the  Ancient   World.     2d  ed.     3  vols. 

New  York,  1871. 
Rawlinson.     Origin  of  Nations.      Lond.,  1877;    New  York,  1881. 
Recent  Inquiries  it}    TJicol.  by   Eminent  Eng.  Churchmen   [better 

known  as  Essays  and  Reviews'}.     4th  Am.  from  2d  Lond.  ed., 

1862. 
•'  Recent  Translations  of  the  Pentateuch."     Church  Quart.  Review, 

1881. 
Reckendorf.     Das  Leben  Mosis.     Leipz.,  1868. 
Records  of  the  Past.      Eng.  Trans,  of  the  Egyptian   and   Assyr. 

Monuments.      12  vols.     Lond.,  Bagster. 
Redslob,  A.  M.       De     Hebrceis     Obstetricantibus     Commentatio. 

LeijDz.,  1835. 
Redslob,  G.  M.     Die  Bibl.  Angaben  nber  die  Stiftung  u.  Grund  d. 

PascJiafcier.     Hamb.,  1856. 
Redslob,  G.  M.     Leviratsehe.     Leipz.,  1836. 
Redslob,  G.  M.     Die  A.  T.  Namen  der  Bev'dlkeruug  d.  ivir kitchen 

u.  idealen  Israeliten-Staates.     Hamb.,  1846. 
Redslob,  G.  M.     Der  Begriff  d.  Nabi.     Leipz.,  1839. 
Redslob,  G.  M.     Der    Schopfungsapolog    (Gen.     ii.     4-iii.     24). 

Strassb.,  1846. 
Regensburg.     Die  Chronol.  d.  Genesis  im  Einklang  mit  der  Pro- 

faneti.     Mainz,  1881. 
Reinhard,  J.  P.     Einleitung zu  d.  Kirchengeschichte  d.  A.  Bundes. 

Erlang.,  175 1. 
Reinhard,  P.  C.     Abriss  einer  Geschichte  d.  Entstehung  u.  Ausbil- 

dungd.  Religiosen  Ideen.     Jena,  1794. 
Reinisch,  L.     Ursprung    u.    Entwickelung    d.     Aegypt.    Priester- 

tJiums,  etc.     Wien,  1878. 
Reinisch,  S.  L.     "  Zur  Chronol.  d.  Alten  Aegypter."     Zeitsch.  d. 

Deutsch.  Motg.  Gescllschaft,  1861. 
Reinke.     Z.  Erkldrung  d.  Alten  Test.     5  Bde.     Miinster,  1863  ff. 
Reinke.     Die  Weissagung  Jacobs,  ate.     Miinster,  1849. 
Reinke.     Die  Scliopfing  d.  Welt.     Miinster,  1859. 
Reland.     Aniiq.  Sacrae  Veteruni  Hcbracoruni.     Utrecht,  171 1. 
Reland.     Paliistina  ex  Monumentis  l/eteribus  Illustrata.    Nlinrb., 

1716. , 
Renan.     Etudes  d'Histoire  Religicuse.     Paris,  1863. 
Renan.     "  Les   Noms   Th^ophoscs  Apocopes    dans    les    Langues 

Sem."    Rev  des  Etudes,  Oct.,  D^c,  1882. 


458       The  PcntatciiciL :  Its  Origin  and  Strnctnrc. 

Renan.     "  La  Tendance  des  Peuples  S^mitiques  au  Monoth^isme." 

Journal  As.,  1859,  PP-  -H»  4i7- 
Renan.     Das  yude/il/ni/u  vom    GesicJitspunkte   der   Rasse   u.  der 

Religion.     Vortrag.     Basel,  1883. 
Renard  et  Lacour.     "  De  la  Manne  du  Desert  on  Manne  des  H6- 

breux."     Critiqice  Historiqiie,  etc.,  Alger,  1881. 
Rendell.     Antedihiv.  History.     Lond.,  1851. 
Rendell.     Fostdiliiv.  History.     Ibid.,  1855. 

Renouf.     Lectures  on  the  Origin  and  Growth  of  Religion,  as  illus- 
trated by  the  Relig.    of  Ancient  Egypt.      Hibbert   Lectures. 

Lond.,  1880. 
Repertorium  d.  Exegese  d.  Alt.  Test.     Th.  i..  Genesis.    Berlin,  1855. 
Reubelt      "  Bible   and   Tradition."     Christ.    Quarterly,   vii.    106. 
Reusch.      Lehrb.  d.  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament.     4te  Aufl. 

P'reiburg,  1870. 
Reusch.     Bibeln.  Natiir.     4te  Aufl.     Ibid.,  i?>76. 
Reuss.     Die   Geschichte  d.  Heil.  Schriften   d.  Alten    Testamettts. 

Braunschweig,  2te  Halfte,  1881. 
Reuss.     "  Judenthum."     Ersch  u.  Gruber's  Encyclop'ddie. 
Reuss.     Les  Prophites.     Paris,  1879. 
Reuss.     La  Bible,  Traduction  Noicvelle  avec  Introductions  et  Com- 

mentaires.     Paris,    1875   ff-       (Part  iii.,  LHistoire  Saittte   et 

la  Loi,  Pent,  et  Jos.,  2  vols.,  1879). 
R^ville.     Les  Religions  des  Peuples  non  Civilises.     Paris,  1882. 
R^ville.     ProUgomhies  de  VHistoire  des  Religions.     Paris,  1881. 
Rialle.     La  Mythologie  Comparee.     Paris,  1878. 
Riant.     Invention  de  la  Sepulture  des  Patriarches  .  .  .  a  Hebron. 

G^nes,  1883. 
Richards.     "  The  Deluge  of  Ogyges  and  Deucalion."     Bibliotheca 

Sac,  iii.  pp.  347,  699. 
Richers.     Die  Schopfu ngs-Paradieses  7/.  Sund/luthgeschichte  [Gen. 

i.-ix.]  Erkldrt.     Leipz.,  1854. 
Riehm.     "  D.  Schuldopfer."    Stud.  u.  Kritiken,  1854. 
Riehm.     Das  Erste  Buch  Mosc   [a  revised  trans,  and  explan.  re- 
marks].    Halle,  1873. 
Riehm.     De  Naturaet  Natione  Sy)nbol.  Cheruboruni.     Basel,  1864. 
Riehm.     "  D.  Begriff  der  Slihne  im  Alt.  Test."     Stud.  u.  Kritiken, 

'^77- 
Riehm.     "  Bilderdienst."     Handworterb.  d.  Bzbl.  Altertums. 
Riehm.     Handworterb.   d.  Bibl.  Altertunis.     Herausg.  unter  Mit- 

wirkung  G.  Baur,  Beyschlag,  Delitzsch,  Ebers,  u.  A.     Leipz., 

1884. 
Riehm.     "  Die  so-genannte  Grundschrift  des  Pentateuchs."     Stud. 

u.  Kritiken,  1872. 
Riehm.     Review  of  Graf's  Die  Geschichtlichen  Bilcher.    Ibid.,  1868. 
Riehm.     Der  Bibl.  Schopfungsbericht.     Halle,  188 1. 
Riehm.     D.  Gesetzgebung  Mosis  im  Lande  Moab.     Gotha,  1854. 
Riggenbach.     Die  Mos.  Stiftsh'utte.     2te  Aufl.,  Basel,  1867. 
Rinck.     "  D.  Schuldopfer."     Stud.  u.  Kritiken    (with   a    "  Nach- 

trag"  by  Riehm),  1855,  p.  369. 


Literature  of  the  Pentateuch.  459 

Rinck.     Einheit  d.  Mos.  Schopfiingsbericht.     Heidelb.,  1822. 

Rioult.  "  L'Archdol.  Pr6historiqLie,"etc.  Rev.d.  Qtiestions  Hist., 
Jan.,  1882. 

Rivet.  Comment,  in  Libr.  2  Mosis,  qui  Exodus  inscribitur .  Ley- 
den,  1634. 

Rivet.  Introductio  Generalis  ad  Script.  Sac.  V.  et  N.  Test.  Ley- 
den,  1627. 

Robbins.     "  Song  of  Deborah."     Bibliotheca  Sac,  xii.  p.  597. 

Robert.  Pentateuc/ii  I'ersio  Latiiia  Autiquissima  e  Cod.  Lugd. 
Paris,  1880. 

Roberts.     Oriental  III.  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures.     Lond.,  1835. 

Robertson,  F.  W.     Notes  on  Genesis.     Lond.,  1877. 

Robertson,  J.     Clavis  PentateucJu.     Edinb.,  1770. 

Robinson.  Vindication  of  Mos.  System  of  Creation.  Lond., 
1709. 

Roderich.     Die  Volkertaf el  des  Moses.     Priim,  1880. 

Rodier.     Antiqtiite  des  Races  Humaines.     Paris,  1862. 

Rogers,  B.  B.     Mosaic  Records.     2d  ed.     Lond.,  1865. 

Rogers,  H.     Vindication  of  Colcnso.     Edinb.,  1863. 

Romaine.     Div.  Legation  of  Moses  Demojistrated.     Lond.,   1747. 

Roringer.  De  Miitati  Hebraeorum  Ingenii  post  Red.  e  Captiv. 
Baby  I.  Ratione  ct  Causis.     Leyden,  1820. 

Rosch.     "  Zeitrechnimg."     Wtrzog^s  Redl-Encyk.     iste  Aufl. 

Rosenmliller.  ScJwlia  in  Vetics  Testamenttim.  [Vol.  i.  treats  of 
tlie  Pent.]     Leipz.,  1788  tif. 

Rosenmliller.  Pentateuchus  Annotatione  Perpet.  Illustratiis . 
Leipz.,  1821-24. 

Rosenmliller.     De  Versione  Pent.  Persica.     Leipz.,  1813. 

Rosenmliller.  Handb.  f.  d.  Liter  at  ur  d.  Bibl.  Kritik  u.  Exegese. 
4  Bde.     Getting.,  1798-1800. 

Rosenmliller.  Handb.  d.  Bibl.  Alterthumer.  4  Bde.  Leipz., 
1823-31. 

Rosenstock.  Heidnische  Mantik  u.  /s.  Prophetie.  Wolfenblittel, 
1880. 

Rosin.  Der  Pentateuch-Commentar  d.  R.  Samuel  ben  Meir,  nach 
Handschriften  u.  Druckwerken  berichtigt  u.  m.  krit.  Erkld- 
ru)igen  Herausgegeben.     Breslau,  1881. 

Roskoff.     Die  Simsonsage.     Leipz.,  i860. 

Roskoff.     Die  Hebr.  Alterthutner  in  B?-iefen.     Wien,  1857. 

Roskoff.  D.  ReligionsTvesen  d.  Rohesten  Naturvolker .  Leipz., 
1880. 

Rosseau.  Ueber  Nat'url.  u.  Geoffenbarte  Religion.  Neustrel., 
1796. 

Rubinsohn.  "  Origin  and  Structure  of  the  Bible."  Christ.  Exam- 
iner, liv.  165. 

Rule.  Oriental  Records  Cflnfirmato?y  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments.    Lond.,  without  date  ;  New  York,  1877. 

Rundquist.     Curac  Philol.  Exeg.  in  Cant.  Mos.     Upsala,  1834. 

Rutherford.  Exam,  of  KennicotVs  Defence  of  Samar.  Pent. 
Camb.,  1 761. 


460        TIic  PentatcncJi :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Ryssel.     De  Elo]iistae  Pentateuchici  Sermone.     Leipz.,  1874. 
Saalschutz.     Arch'dologie  der  Hcbracr.     Konigsb.,  1855-56. 
Saalschlitz.     Das  JMosaische  Recht.     2te  Aufl.,  Berlin,  1853. 
Saalschutz.     Forsc/umgen  im  Gebiete  d.  Hebr'disch-Aegypt.  Archd- 

ologie.     Konigsb.,  1838. 
Saalschutz.     Haiiptpri}icipien  d.  Is.  Gottesdienst .    Konigsb.,  1845. 
Sack,  J.     Die  Religio7t  Altisraels.     Leipz.,  1885. 
Sack,  K.  H.     Licder  d.  Hist.  B'ucher  d.  A.  T.     Barmen,  1864. 
Salvador.     Loi  de  Moise.     Paris,  1822. 
Salvador.     Histoire  dcs  Institidions  de  Mdise  et  dn  Penple  Htbreu. 

Paris,  1828;   (in  German)  Hamb.,  1836. 
Sanday.     "  Nature  and  Devel.  of  Monotheism  in  Israel."     Theolog. 

Review,  Oct.,  1876. 
Sandblichler.      Vertlieid.    d.    Gottlichkeit    d.   Mos.    Gesetzes,   etc. 

Sulzb.,  1787-97. 
Sandys.     In  the  Beginning.     Lond.,  1879. 
Sargent.     A  Cotnpettd.  of  Bib.  Criticism.     Lend.,  i860. 
Sayce.     See  Budge. 

Sayce.     Babylonian  Literature.     Lond.,  1879. 
Sayce.     Fresh  Light  froTn  the  Ancient  Monuments.     Lond. :  The 

Religious  Tract  Soc. 
Sayce.     "Origin  of  the  Name  'Jehovah.'"     Mod.  Review,  Oct., 

1882. 
Sayce.     "The  Gods  of  Canaan."     Contemp.  Review,  Sept.,  1883. 
Sayce.     The  Ancient  Empires  of  the  East.     Nevi^  York,  1884. 
Schafer.     Die  Rclig.  Altert/iumer  der  Bibel.     Munster,  1878. 
Schafter.     Das  Diluvimn  in  der  Bibel.     Frankf.,  1884. 
Schelling.     Atitiquissimi  de  Prima  Malortmt  Hum.  Origine,  etc. 

[Gen.  iii.  explicat.]     Tubing.,  1792. 
Schenkel.     Bibel- Lexikoti.     Leipz.,  1868-75. 
Schenkel.     "  Moses,"  "  Reinigkeit."    Bibel-Lex. 
Scherer.     La  Critique  et  la  Loi.     Paris,  1850. 
Scherer.     "  Le  Monoth^isme  S^metique."     Nowv.  Rev.  de  ThtoL, 

iv.,  1859. 
Scheuchzer.     "  Ueber  d.  Zeit  d.  Zweiten   Einfalls   d.   Hyksos   in 

/4igypten."    Zeitsch.  d.  Dent.  Morgenldnd.   Gesellschaft,  xiv. 

p.  640. 
Scheuchzer.     "  Zur   Geschichte  v.  Assur  u.    Babel.    Ethnograph- 

isches."     Ibid.,  xvi.  p.  482. 
Schickard.     Jus  Regium  Hebraeorum.     Ed.  by  Carpzov.     Leipz., 

1764. 
Schiller.     "  D.  Stern  aus  Jacob."     Beweis  d.  Glaubens,  Jan.,  1884. 
Schlegel.     D.  Geist  d.  Religiositdt  alter  Zeit  en  u.  V'olker.     2  Bde. 

Hannov.,  1819. 
Schleicher.     Bedeid^ing  d.  Sprache  f.  d.  Natur geschichte  d.  Men- 

schen.     Weimar,  1865. 
Schleiden.       "D.    Einheit    d.     Menschengeschlechts."       Wester- 

mann's  ///.  Monatsch.,  Apr.,  i860. 
Schleiden.     "  Die   Pluralitat   d.    Menschenarten."     Ausland,   No. 

10,  i860.     Cf.,  also,  No.  17. 


Literature  of  the  Peiitateuch.  461 

Schlichter.     De  Lychnucho  Sacro  ejusque  Mysterio.     Halle,  1740. 
Schlichter.     De  Panibus  Facieruni  Eorumque  Mysterio.      Ibid., 

Schlottmann.  "  Astarte,"  "  Aschera,"  "  Gbtzendienst,"  Riehm's 
Handworterb.  d.  Bibl.  yiltertums. 

Schmeidler.     Der  Untergang  d.  Ketches  Jtida.     Breslau,  1831. 

Schmid,  C.  F.     Historia  Aniiqua,  etc.     Leipz.,  1775. 

Schmid,  C.  F.  Origo  Librr.  Canotticorum  V.  T.  Wittenberg, 
1772. 

Schmid,  R.  "Die  durch  Darwin  angeregte  Entwickelungsfrage." 
Stud.  It.  Kritiken,  1875,  p.  7. 

Schmidt,  J.  E.  C.  Ei^is  d.  Aeltesten  u.  Schonsten  Idytten  des 
Morgeidandes  [i  IVIos.  xlix.].     Giessen,  1793. 

Schmidt,  K.  L.  C.  "  Ueber  die  Entstehung  u.  das  Alter  der  Gen- 
esis."    BibliotJieJi  f.  Krititi  u.  Exegese,  1802. 

Schmidt,  O.  Das  Opfer  in  d.  Jahve-Religion  u.  im  PolytJieisnms . 
Halle,  1877. 

Schmidt,  S.  Super  Mosis  Librum  Primum  Annotationes .  Ar- 
gent., 1697. 

Schmidt,  S.     Comme^itar.  in  Libr.  Judicum.     Strassb.,  1706. 

Schnell.     Das  Israelii.  Pec/U.     Basel,  1853. 

Schodde.  "  Ezra's  Relation  to  the  Law."  IVew  YorJc  Independ- 
ent, April  5,  1883. 

Schodde.  "Histor.  Character  of  Genesis."  Lidheran  Quart., 
X.  74. 

Schodde.  "  Old  Test.  Criticism  in  the  Am.  Church."  Old  Test. 
Student,  June,  1884. 

Schoebel.     Demonstration  de  P Authenticity  de  la   Genhse.     Paris, 

1873- 
Schoebel.     Dhnonstration   de   VAutheniicite   de    VExode.      Pans, 

1871. 
Schoebel.     Danonstration  de  V AiUhenticite  Mosdique  du  Uvitique 

et  des  Nojnbres.     Paris,  1869. 
Schoebel.     De  V Universality  du  Deluge.     Paris,  1858-60. 
Schoebel.     Le  Mdise  Histor ique  et  la  Redaction  Mosaique  du Penta- 

teuqjie.     Paris,  1875. 
Schoebel.     Les  Stations  d Israel  dans  le  Desert.     Paris,  1859. 
Schoebel.     Me  moire  sur  les  six  Jours  ou  Epoques  de  la   Genise. 

Paris,  1859. 
Schoebel.     Me  moire  sur  le  Monothcisme  primitif  attribue  par  M. 

E.  Penan  a.  la  seule  Race  Shiutique.     Paris,  i860. 
Schoebel.     Refutation  de  quelques  Objections  centre  les  Ricits  de  la 

Genise.     Paris,  1862. 
Schoebel.     Satan  et  la  Chute  de  V Homme .     Paris,  1859. 
Scholl.     "Ueber  die  Opferidee  der  Alten,  insbesond.,  der  Juden  " 

Studien  d.  Ev.  Geistlichkeit  W'urtembergs,  iv.,  Hefte  1-3. 
Scholz,  A.     Die  j-Egyptologie   u.   d.   B'ucher    Mosis.      Wurzburg, 

1878. 
Scholz,  A.     Die  Keilschrift-Urkunden  u.  d.  Genesis.      Wurzburg, 

1877. 


462        The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Scholz,  F.  P.     De  Origine  No7mnis  "  Jahve.''''     Breslau,  1857. 
Scholz,  J.  M.  A.     Einleitung iti  die  Heil.  Schrift.     3  Bde.     Kbln, 

1 844-48 . 
Scholz,  J.  M.  A.     Haiidb.  d.  Bibl.  Archaologie.     Bonn,  1834. 
Scholz,  P.     Die  heil.  Alterth'umer  d.  Volkes  Is.     Regensb.,  1868. 
Scholz,  P.     Gotzetidienst  Ji.  Zaiiberwesen  bei  den  alien  Hebriiern. 

Regensb.,  1877. 
Schrader.     "  Der    Babylon.   Ursprung   d.  Siebentagigen  Woche." 

Stud.  u.  Kritiken,  1874. 
Schrader.     "  Gellibde,"  "  Jahve."     Schenkel's  Bibel-Lex. 
Schrader.     "  Ueber    Sinn   u.    Zusammenhang  d.    Stuckes   v.    den 

Sohnen  Gottes."     Stud,  zur   Kritik.  u.  Erkldrimg  d.    Bibl. 

Urgeschichte,  Zurich,  1863,  p.  61. 
Schrader.     "Die    Abstammung   der   Chaldaer  u.  die   Ursitzen   d. 

Semiten."     Zeitsch.  d.  Deut.  Morgenldnd.  Gesellschaft,   1873, 

P-  397- 
Schrader.     Die  Kedinschriften  u.  das  Alte  Testament.     2te  Aun., 

Giessen,  1883. 
Schrader.     "  Semitismus  u.  Babylonismus."     Jahrbucher  f.  Prot. 

Theologie,  1875. 
Schrader.     SpracJwergleichtcng  u.  Urgeschichte.     Jena,  1883. 
Schrader.     Zur  Frage  nach  de^n  Ursprung  d.  Alt  baby  Ion.  Cultur. 

BerHn,  1884. 
Schrader.     "Zur  Kritik.  d.  Bibl.-Assyr.  Chronologie."     Zeitsch.  d. 

Deut.  Morgenldnd.  Gesellschaft ,  xxv.  p.  449. 
Schrank.     Com.  Literalis  in  Genesin.     Solisb.,  1835. 
Schroeder.     See  Theologisch-Homilet .  Bibeliverk. 
Schroeder.     Das  Erste  B.  Mose  Ausgelegt.     Berlin,  1844-45. 
Schroring.     "  Zur  Erklarung  der  Genesis."     Zeitschrift  f.   Wiss. 

Theologie,  1880,  p.  385. 
Schroter.     "  Bar-hebraus'  Scholien  zu  Gen.  49,  50;    Ex.   14,   15; 

Dt.  32-34,  u.  Jud.  5."     Zeitsch.  d.  Deutschen  Morgefil.  Gesell- 
schaft, Bd.  xxiv.  pp.  506,  518,  550. 
Schulthess.     Das  Paradies,  etc.     Leipz.,  1821. 
Schultz,  F.  W.     Das  Dcuteronomium  Erkldrt.     Berlin,  1859. 
Schultz,    F.    W.      "  Die   Innere    Bedeutung    der  A.    T.    Feste." 

Detdsche  Zeitsch.  f.  Christl.   IViss.,  1859. 
Schultz,  F.  W.     Die  Sch'dpfungsgeschichte  nach  Naturwissenschaft 

u.  Bibel.     Gotha,  1865. 
Schultz,  F.  W.     "  Ephod."     Yiexzo^?,  Redl-Ericyk.     2te  Aufl. 
Schultze,  F.     Der  Fetischismus.     Leipz.,  1871. 
Schultze,  M.      Geschichte  d.  Altebr'dischcn  Liter atur.     Thorn,  1870. 
Schultze,  M.     Handb.  d.  Ebrd.  Mythologie.     Nordhausen,  1876. 
Schultze,  M.     Moses    u.    die    Zehnwort-Gesetze    d.    Pentateuchs. 

Berlin,  1875. 
Schulz,  J.  C.  F.     Scholia   in    V.  T.  (continued   by  G.  Lr.  Bauer). 

Nurnb.,  1789-98. 
Schulz,  J.  H.     Philos.  71.  Krit.  Untersuchungen  .   .  .  uber  d.  Mos. 

Religion.     Leipz.,  1785. 
Schulze.     Compendiiun  Archaologiae  Hcbr.     Dresden,  1793. 


Literature  of  the  Pentateuch.  463 

Schumann,  A.     Prakt.  Einleitung in  d.  Biicher  d.  A.  u.  N.  Testa- 
ments.    Berlin,  1848. 
Schumann,  G.  A.     Genesis  Hebraice  et    Greece  cum    Annotatiotie 

Per  pet  11  a.     Lips.,  1829. 
Schuster.     Aelteste  Sagen  der  Bibel.     Luneburg,  1804. 
Schiitz.     "  L'Esprit  deMo'ise."    Mentoires  dePAcad.  de  Stanislaus , 

i860,  p.  301. 
Scott.     Moses  and  the  Pentateuch.     Lond.,  1863. 
Scott.     Principles  of  N.  T.  (2notations  .   .   .  applied  to  Bib.  Crit. 

and  espec.  to  the  Gospels  andtJie  Pentateuch.     Edinb.,  1877. 
"  Scripture  Evolution."     Amer.  Church  Rev.,  Oct.,  1884. 
Seinicke.     Geschichte  d.  Volkes  Is.     Vol.  i.     Gotting.,  1876. 
Seisenberger.      D.    Bibl.   Schopficngsbericht  ausgelegt.      Freising, 

1881. 
Selden.     De  Aniw  Civ.  et  Calendario.     Lond.,  1644. 
Selden.     De  Siiccessionibiis  in  Bona  Deftmcti  ad  Leges  Ebraeorum. 

Lond.,  1 63 1. 
Selden.     De  Success,  in  Pontificatum  Ebr.     Lond.,  1636. 
Selden.     De  Synhedriis  et  Praefecturis  furid.  Vet.  Hebr.     3  vols. 

Lond.,  1650. 
Selden.     Uxor  Hebr.  Absolvens  Nicptias  et  Divortia    Vet.  Hebr. 

Wittenberg,  17 12. 
Selnecker.     In  Genesin  Commentarius.     Lips.,  1569. 
Semler.     Abhandlungv.  Freier  Untersuchung  des  Kanons.     Halle, 

1771-75. 
Semler.     Apparatus  ad  Liberalem  V.  T.  Ititerpretationem.     Halle, 

Serpilius.     Lebensbeschreibungen  d.  Bibl.  Scribenten.     Leipz.,  1708. 
Sewall.     "The   Humaneness   of   the   Mosaic   Code."     Bibliotheca 

Sac,  xix.  p.  368. 
Seyffarth.      Grundsatze    d.   Mythologie    u.   d.   alien    Religionsge- 

schichte.     Leipz.,  1843. 
Sharpe.     Hebrew  Inscriptions  from  the  Valleys  between  Egypt  and 

Mount  Sinai.     Lond.,  1877. 
Sharpe.     History  of  Egypt  from  the  Earliest  Times.     Lond.,  1876. 
Sharpe.     History  of  the  Heb.  Nation  and  its  Literature.     4th  ed. 

Lond.,  1882. 
Shedd.     "The  Two  Views  of  the  Old  Testament."'     New   York 

Observer,  Jan.  11,  1883. 
Sherer.     Defence  of  Colenso.     Lond.,  1863. 
Siegfried.     Spinoza  als  Kritiker  u.  Ausleger  d.  Alt.  Test.     Berlin, 

1867. 
Sifra.     Comme7itar  zu  Lev.  aus  d.  Anfange  d.  3   Jahrhunderts. 

Ed.  by  Schlossberg.     Berlin,  1863. 
Sigonius.     De  Republica  Hebraeoritm.     Frankf.,  1855. 
Sillem.      D.   Alte   Test,   im   Lichte  d.   Assyr.   Forschungen,   etc. 

Hamb.,  1877. 
Sime.     Deuteronomy  the  People^s  Book.     Lond.,  1877. 
Sime.      The  Kingdom  of  All  Israel.     Lond.,  1883. 
Simon,  D.  W.     "Authority  of  the  Bible."     Pirit.  (htart.  Review, 

Oct.,  1864,  p.  364. 


464       The  Peiitatetich  :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Simon,  R.     Histoire  Critique  du  Vieiix  Testament .     Paris,  1678. 
Simon,  R.     R^ponse  an   Livre   Intitule    Sentiinens,    etc.,  par    le 

Prieur  de  Bolleville.     Rotterdam,  1686. 
Simpson.      Typical  Cliaractcr  of  the  Tabernacle.     Edinb.,  1852. 
Singer.      Onkelos  u.  das  Verhiiltniss  seines  Targujns  zur  Halacha. 

Frankf.,  1881. 
Smend.    Der  Prophet  Esechiel  Erlddrt.    {Kurzgef.  Exeget.  Handb., 

2te.  Aufl.),  Leipz.,  1880. 
Smend.     Die  Listen  d.  D'ucJier  Esra  ti.  Neh.  zusammengestellt  u. 

l/nters7(cht.     Programm,  Basel,  1881. 
Smend.     Moses  apud  Prophetas.     Halle,  1875. 
Smend.     "  Ueber  die  Genesis  d.  Judenthmiis."     Zeitsch.  f.  Alttcst. 

Wissenschaft,  1882,  p.  94. 
Smend.     "  Ueber  die  von  den  Propheten  des  achten  Jahrhunderts 

Vorausgesetzte  Entwickelungsstufe   der  Is.  Religion."     Stud. 

n.  Kritiken,  1876,  p.  599. 
Smith,  G.     Assyr.  Discoveries.     New  ed.  by  Sayce.     Lond.,  1880. 
Smith,  G.     Assyria  to  the  P''all  of  Nineveh.     Lond.,  1875. 
Smith,  G.     Doctrine  of  the  Cherubi/n.     Lond.,  1850. 
Smith,  G.     Hist,  of  Babylon.     Ed.  by  Sayce.     Lond.,  1877. 
Smith,  G.     Sacred  Annals.    Vol.  i..  Patriarchal  Age.     Lond.,  1859. 
Smith,  G.     The  Chaldcaan  Account  of  Genesis.     New  ed.     Lond., 

1880;  New  York,  1881. 
Smith,  G.     "The  Jews:  a  Deferred  Rejoinder."     Nineteenth  Cen- 
tury, Nov.,  1882. 
Smith,  H.  P.     "  Critical  Theories  of  Julius  Wellhausen."     Presbyt. 

Rev.,  1882,  iii. 
Smith,  H.  P.     "  The  High  Places."     Hcb.  Student,  April,  1883. 
Smith,  J.  A.      "  Language   of    Primitive   Man."       Heb.   Student, 

March,  1883. 
Smith,  J.  A.     "  Mod.  Bib.  Criticism  :  its  Practical  Bearings."     Old 

Test.  Student,  Feb.,  1884. 
Smith,  J.  A.     "  Studies  in  Archaeology  and  Comparative  Religion." 

Old  Test.  Student,  1884-85. 
Smith,  J.  R.     Origin  of  the  Hum.  Race.     Philol.  Proofs.     Lond., 

1846. 
Smith,  R.  P.     Mosaic  Authorship  and   Credibility  of  the  Penta- 
teuch.    Lond.  Relig.  Tract  Society. 
Smith,  T.     Hist.  of.  Moses  Viewed  in  connection  with  Egypt.  An- 
tiquities.    Edinb.,  i860. 
Smith,  W.     A  Dictionary  of  the  Bible.     3  vols.     Lond.,  1860-63. 

Am.  ed.  revised,  4  vols.     Boston,  1870. 
Smith,  W.     The  Book  of  Moses;  or,  the   Petit,  in   its   Authority, 

Credibility,  and  Civilization.     Lond.,  1868. 
Smith,  W.     The   Old   Test.   History.      Lond.,    1865;  New   York, 

1871. 
Smith,  W.  R.     Additional  Atisiuer  to  the  Libel,  etc.     Edinb.,  1878. 
Smith,  W.  R.      "  Animal    Worship   and    An.    Tribes    among   the 

Arabs  and  in  the  Old  Testament."     Journal  of  Philol.,  1880, 

P-7S- 


Literature  of  the  Pentateuch.  4^5 

Smith,  W.  R.     "Decalogue."     Encyc.  Britannica. 

Smith,  W.  R.  "  The  attitude  of  Christians  toward  the  Old  Testa- 
ment."    Expositor,  April,  1884. 

Smith,  W.  R.  "  The  Chronol.  of  the  Books  of  Kings."  Journal 
of  Philol.,  X.  p.  2og. 

Smith,  W.  R.  T/ic  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Ouirch.  Lond., 
1881. 

Smith,  W.  R.     Ttie  Prophets  of  Israel.     Lond.,  1882. 

Smith,  W.  R.  "  The  Poetry  of  the  Old  Testament."  British 
Quart.  Rev.,  Jan.,  1877. 

Smyth.     Unity  of  the  Hum.  Races.     New  York,  1850. 

Sorensen.     Histor.-Krit.  Com mentar  zur  Genesis.     Kiel,  185 1. 

Solomon,  G.     Genesis  ubersetzt  u.  co)nmcntirt.     Leipz.,  1847. 

Solomon,  J.  D.  BcscJineidung  Historiscli  u.  Medicin.  Beleuchtet. 
Braunschw.,  1884. 

Soltau.      Vessels  of  tlie  Tabernacle.     Lond.,  1865. 

Sommer.     "  Rein  u.  Unrein."     Bibl.  Abhandlungen,  Bonn,  1846. 

Southall.     Recent  Origin  of  Man.     Phil.,  1875. 

Spencer.     De  Legibus  Hebraeorunt  Ritualibus .     Camb.,  1685,  1727. 

Spencer.  Hebrews  and  Phcenicians,  Classified  and  Arranged. 
Lond.,  1880. 

Spiess.     Comparative  Study  of  Religions.     Jena,  1874. 

Spinoza.  Tractatus  TheologicoT^oliticus .  Hamb.,  1670.  The 
book  was  actually  printed  in  Amsterd.  It  is  also  found  in 
Paulus's  ed.  of  Spinoza's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  141  (Jena,  1802), 
and  was  republished  in  England  (Lend.)  in  1863. 

Stade.  Geschichte  d.  Volkes  Israel  {Allgem.  Geschichte  in  Einzel- 
rt'<zr.$'/6'//«;/!^,  herausg.  Von  Oncken).     Berlin,    1881. 

Stade.  "  Lea  u.  Rachel."  Zeitsch.  f.  d.  Alttest.  Wissenschaft, 
1881,  p.  112. 

Stade.  "  Text  des  Berichtes  liber  Salomo's  Bauten."  Ibid.,  1883, 
p.  129. 

Stade.     "Wo  entstanden  die  Sagen  Uber   die  Hebraer?"     Ibid., 

P-  347- 
Stade.     "  Zur   Entstehungsgesch.    d.    Vordeuteronom.    Richterbu- 

ches.     Ibid.,  1881,  p.  339. 
Stahelin.     Animadversiones  Quaedam  in  Jacobi  Vaticiniutn  (Gen. 

cap.  xlix.).     Basel,  1827. 
Stahelin.     Das  Leben  Davids.     Basel,  1866. 
Stahelin.     "  Der  Stamm  Levi."     Zeitsch.  d.  Deutsch.  AforgenlciJid. 

Gesellschaft ,  ix.  p.  708. 
.Stahelin.     "  Erobemng  u.  Vertheidigung  Palastinas  durch  Josua." 

Ibid.,  1849,  ii. 
Stahelin.     Kritische  Unterstichungen  uber  den  Pentateuch.     Berlin, 

1843. 
Stahelin.     Kritische  Untersuch.  Ytber  die  Genesis.     Basel,  1830. 
Stahelin.     Review  of  Konig's  Alttest.  Studien.     Stud.  u.  A'rittken, 

1838. 
Stahelin.     Specielle  Einleit.  in  d.   Kanon.  Biicher   d.   Alt.    Test. 

Elberfeld,  1862. 


466       The  PeiitatcucJi :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Stanley.     Lectures  on  the  History  of  the  Jewish  Church.     3  Parts. 

7th  ed.     New  York,  1877. 
Stanley.     Sinai  and  Palestine  in    Connection  with  their  History. 

New  York,  1883. 
Starke.     Synopsis  BibliotJiecce  Exeget.  in   V.  T.     Leipz.,   1741-50. 

New  ed.,  Berlin,  1870. 
Staudlin.     Cojunientt.  de  Leginn  Mosaicarum  Alemento  et  Ingenio, 

Collectione  et  Effectibus.     Getting.,  1796-97. 
Staudlin.     "Die  Echtheit  der  Mos.  Schriften  Vertheidigt."     Ber- 

tholdt's  Ar//.  Journal,  1825. 
Stearns.     "  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church."     Baptist 

Quarterly,  1882,  p.  221. 
.Stebbins.     A  Study  of  the  Pent,  for  Popidar  Reading.     Boston, 

1881. 
Stebbins.     "Did  Ezra  write  or  amend  the  Pentateuch?"     Unit. 

Review,  Sept.,  1883. 
Steglich.     Skizsen  uber  Schriften  u.  Bucherwesen  der  Hebraer  zur 

Zeit  d.  A.  Bundes.     Leipz.,  1876. 
Steiner.     "  Opfer,"  "  Jubeljahr,"  "  Versohnungstag."     SchenkePs 

Bibel-Lex. 
Steinthal.  "  Das  Fiinfte  B.  Mose."     Zeitsch.f.Vdlkerpsychol.,\\.  i. 
Steinthal.  "  Z.  Characteristik  d.  Sem.  Volker."  Ibid.,  i860,  p.  328. 
Sterringa.     Animadv.  Phil.Sacr.in  Pentateuchiun.     Leyden,  1721. 
Steudei.     Ueber  die  Haltbarkeit    d.    Glaubens    an    Geschichtliche 

HoJiere  Offenbarungen  Gottes.     Stuttg.,  18 14. 
Stevens.      "  Prehistoric  Literature."     Bibliotheca  Sac.,-^yiV\\\.  p.  609. 
Stewart.      Tiie  Mosaic  Sacrifices .     Lond.,  1883. 
Stickel.     "  Auszug  d.  Israeliten  aus  .(Egypten  bis  z.  Rothen  Meer." 

Stud.  u.  Kritiken,  1850,  ii. 
Stier.     Priester  u.  Propheten,  ihr  Wcrken  u.  Gegenseitiges  Verh'dlt- 

niss.     Wien,  1884. 
Stifler.       "  The   Relation   of   the   Gospels   and   the   Pentateuch." 

Baptist  Quarterly  Rev.,  Jan.,  1883. 
Stbckl.     Das    Opfer   nach    scineni    IVesen    n.   seiner    Geschichte. 

Mainz,  i860. 
Stockl.     Liturgie   u.  Dogmatische  Bedeutung  der  Alttest.  Opfer. 

Regensb.,  1848. 
Stokes.     The  Objectivity  of  Truth.     Lond.,  1884. 
Strachan.     Mosaic  IVarrative  Examined.     Lond.,  1854. 
Strack.     "  Gesch.  d.  Juden."     Jahresberichte  d.  Geschichtswissen- 

schaft,  1878,  i. 
Strack.     Prolegomena    Critica    in    V.  Test.    Hebraicuni.       Leipz., 

1873.     See,  also,  "  Pentateuch,"  in  Herzog's  Redl-Encyk.,  2te 

Aufl. 
Strack.     See  Zockler. 
Strack      "  The  Higher  Criticism  a  Witness  to   the   Credibility  of 

the  Biblical  Narrative."     Hcbraica,  March,  1884. 
Strong.     "Documentary  Origin  of  Genesis."     Meth.  Quart.  Rev., 

Jan.,  1882. 
Strong.     See  McClintock. 


Literature  of  tJic  Pentateuch.  467 

Stuart.     TsracVs  Lawgiver.     Lond.,  1882. 

Stuart.     The  Bible  True  to  Itself.     A  Treatise  ott  the  Historical 

Truth  of  the  Old  Testament.     Lond.,  1884. 
Stubner.     Ad  Hist .  Eccles .  Vet.  Test.Introdiictio.     Nlirnb.,  1690. 
Studer.     Das  Btich  d.  Richter  erklart.     Leipz.,  1835. 
Studer.     De  Versionis  Alex.  Origine,  Historia,  Usii  et  Abtisii  Crit^ 

ico.     Bern,  J 823. 
Stiuiien.     Theologish  Tijdschrift  onder  Redactie  van  Chantepie  en 

Valeton,  Groningen,  from  1875.     The  second  has  an  article  on 

the  Bible  as  a   Revelation.     From   1879  there  are  papers   on 

Deuteronomy. 
Subjects  in  Disptite  between  the  Author  of  the  Div.  Legation  of  Mos. 

[Warburton]  a)id  a  late  Professor  in  Oxford.     Lond.,  1766. 
Super.     "  Recent  Crit.  of  the  Pentateuch."     Northwestern   Chris- 
tian Advocate,  Dec.  17,  1884. 
Sliss.     Die  SVindflnth.     Leipz.,  1883. 
Sutherland      "  The  Pentateuch  and  Egypt."     Methodist   Quart., 

XXXV. 221. 
Talbot.     Antiq.  of  the  Book  of  Genesis.     Lond.,  1839. 
"  Targums  on  the  Pentateuch."    Am.  Ch.  Quart.  Rev.,  April,  1881. 
Taylor,  E.  B.     Primitive  Cidture.     Lond.,  1871. 
Taylor,  F.     Chald.  Parapr.  in  Pent.  Latine,  etc.     Lond.,  1649. 
Taylor,  L     Considerations   on  the  Pentateuch.      3d   ed.      Lond., 

1863. 
Taylor,  J.  P.      "  Prof.  W.   Robertson  Smith  from  a  Conservative 

Standpoint."     Bibliothcca  Sac,  1882,  p.  291. 
Taylor,  W.  C.     ///.  of  Bible  from  Monuments  of  Egypt.     Lond., 

1838. 
Taylor,  W.  M.     Moses  the  Lawgiver.     New  York,  1879. 
Teller.     Die  Aelteste  Theodicee.     Jena,  1802. 
Teller.     Notae  Crit.  et  Exeget.  in  Gen.  xlix.,  Deut.  xxxiii.,  Ex.  xv., 

Jud.  V      Halle,  1766. 
Terry.     "  The    Higher   Criticism   of  the   Pentateuch."     Methodist 

Quart.  Rev.,  18S4,  pp.  405,  605. 
Terser.     Annotationes  in  Genesin.     Upsala,  1655. 
Thalemann.     Tractat.  de  Nube  super  Area  Foederis .    Leipz.,  1752. 
Thalhofer.     Die    Unblutigen    Opfer  des   Mos.  Cultus.     Regensb., 

1848. 
Thayer.   The  Hebrews  and  the  Red  Sea.     Andover,  1883. 
"  The   Book   of    Genesis   and    Science."     Lond.    Quart.   Review, 

April,  1877. 
"  The  Distinctive  Character  of  the  O.  Test.  Scriptures."     Brit,  and 

For.  Ev.  Review,  Jan.,  1870. 
"The  Genesis  and  the  Sinaitic  Revelation."     Amer.  Israelite,  July 

18,  1884. 
Theile.     Pentateuchus.     Ex  Editione  utriusqjte  Testavienti  Tauch- 

nitiana.     Leipz.,  1861. 
Thenius.      Die   Biicher    Samuels    erkldrt    {Exeget.   Handb.    ziim 

A.T.).     2teAufl.,  Leipz.,  1864. 
Thenius.     Die  Bllcher  Konige.     Idem,  1873. 


468        TJie  PcntateiicJi :  Its  Origin  and  Strnctni'c. 

Theodoret.     "  Questiones    in    Leviticum.'"       Op.    torn.    i.    p.    114 

Ed.  Sirmond.     Paris,  1642. 
"  The  Old   Test,  and    Human    Sacrifice."     British   and  For.  Ev. 

Review,  July,  1884. 
Theologisch-Hoiiiiletisclies    Bibelwerk,    herausg.    v.     J.    P.     Lange. 

Leipz.,  1857  ff.     The  work  on  the  Pent.  —  excepting  Deut.  by 

Schroeder  ■ —  was  by  the  editor.     See  Commentary. 
"  The  Peninsula  of  Sinai."     Loud.  (2narterly  Rev.,  July,  1867. 
Thierbach.       Weber    den    Auszug    d.    Kinder  Is.   aus    ALgypten. 

Erfurt,  1830. 
Thiersch.     De  Pentateiichi  Versione  Alexandrifta.     Erlang.,  1841. 
Theirsch.     Die  Genesis  ttach  ihrer  Moral,  n.  Prophet.  Bedeutung. 

Basel,   1870.      2te   Aufl.  under   title:   Die  Anfiinge  d.  Heil. 

Gesch.  nach  dem  Ersteti  B.  Mosis  Betrachtet.     Basel,  1877. 
Tholuck.     "  Ueber  den    Ursprung    des    Namens    Jehova."       Ver- 

mischte  Schriften,  Gotha,  1867,  p.  184. 
Thomas.     Key  to  the  Books  of  Satn.,  &\.q.     Lond.,  1881. 
Thompson,  E.  A.     "Genesis  and  its  First  Four  Chapters."     Brit- 

isli  and  For.  Ev.  Review,  Jan.,  1877. 
Thompson,  J.     Gidde  to  Study  of  the  Pentateuch.     Lond.,  1839. 
Thompson,   J.    P.      "Notes   on   Egyptology."      Bibliotheca    Sac. 

Continued  through  a  series  of  years  from  1864. 
Thompson,  W.  H.      The  Great  Argument ',  or,  Jesus  Christ  in  the 

Old  Test.     New  York,  1884. 
Thompson,  W.  M.     The  Land  and  the  Book.     2  vols.     New  York, 

1882. 
Thornton.     Lectures  on  the  Pentateuch.     Lond.,  1843. 
Thwing.     "  Prof.  W.  Robertson   Smith  and  his   Theories   of  Old 

Test.  Criticism."     Bibliotheca  Sac,  1882,  p.  133. 
Tieftrunk.     V er such  einer  Kritik  der  Religion.     Berlin,  1790. 
Tiele,  C.  P.     Die  Assyriol.  71.  ihre  Ergebnisse  f.  d.   Vergleichende 

Religionsgeschichte.     Leipz.,  1878. 
Tiele,  C.  P.     Egyptian  Religion.     Lond.  and  Boston,  1882. 
Tiele,  C.  P.     Egypt ische  en   Mesopotainische    Godsdiensten.     Am- 

sterd.,  1872. 
Tiele,  C.  P.     "  La  Religion  des  Ph^niciens."     Revjie  de  PHistoire 

lies  Religions,  1881,  t.  iii.  2. 
Tiele,  J.  N.      Chronol.  d.  A.    T.  bis   zujn   ersten    Jahr  Koresch. 

Bremen,  1839. 
Tiele,  J.N.    Das  Erste  B.  Mosis  Uebersetzt  u.  Com.   Erlang.,  1836. 
Tischendorf.     See  Heyse. 
Tischendorf.     Bibliorum    Codex  Sinaiticus   Petrop.     St.   Petersb., 

1862. 
Tischendorf.      De    Israelitaruni    per    Mare    Rubrum     Transitu. 

Leipz.,  1847. 
Tischendorf.      V.    T.    Graece.     5th   ed.      1875.     The   ed.    of   1880 

contains  as  an  appendix  the  readings  of  II.  and  X.  by  Nestle. 
Tobler.     Gedanken    u.  Antwort  zur  EJire   d.  Altvdt.   u.    Mosis. 

Zurich,  1788. 
Tompkins.     "  Egyptology  and  the  Bible."     Pal .  Explor .  Ex.  Fund. 

Quarterly,  Jan.,  1884. 


Literattire  of  the  Pentateuch.  469 

Topler.  De  PentateucJti  Interpretationis  Alex.  Indole  Crit.  et  Her- 
7ncticut.     Halle,  1830. 

Townsend,  G.      Com.  on  the  Pent,  and  Job.     Lond.,  1849. 

Townsend,  J.  Veracity  of  Mas.  as  Historian.  Vol.  i.  Lond., 
1813. 

Townsend,  L.  T.     Mosaic  Records  and  Mod.  Science.     Lond.,  1881. 

Toy.     "  Date  of  Deuteronomy."     Unitarian  Rev.,  Feb.,  1885. 

Toy.  "On  the  Gen.  Interpret,  of  Ezek.  xl.-xlviii."  (abstract). 
Jo7irnal  of  Soc.  for  Bib.  Lit.  and  Exegesis,  July-Dec,  1880. 

Toy.     The  Babylon.  Element  in  Ezckicl.     Ibid.,  1881,  p.  59. 

Tracy.  "  The  Bible  Doctrine  of  Divorce."  Bibliotheca  Sac,  xxiii. 
p.  384. 

"Tradition  a  Source  of  Relig.  Knowledge  in  Early  Ages."  Bibli- 
otheca Sac,  xvi.  p.  359. 

"  Transmission  of  Books  of  Moses."     Christian  Observer,  Ixv.  707. 

Trapp.      Com.  npon  the  Pentateuch.     Lond.,  1650. 

Trede.  Der  Einheit.  Ursprung  d.  Menschengeschlechts .  Kiel, 
1878. 

Tridon.     Du  Molochisme  fuif.     Bruxelles,  1884. 

Trigland.     Disputatt.  de  Origine  Sacrificiorum.     Leyden,  1692. 

Trip.  Die  Theophanien  in  den  Geschichtsb'uchern  d.  A.  T.  Ley- 
den, 1858.     Rev.  by  Schultze.     Stud.  n.  Kritiken,  1859,  ii. 

Tristam.     Genesis  and  the  Brickfields.     Lond.,  1879. 

Tristam.     The  Land  of  Israel.     2d  ed.,  Lond.,  1866. 

Tromm.  Co}icordantiae  Graecae  Versionis.  .  .  Interpretum.  2  tomi. 
Amsterd.,  17 18. 

Trovver.     Short  Comments  on  Numb,  and  Deuteronomy.     Lond., 

1877. 
Trumbull.     Kadesh-Barnea:  its  Importance  and  Prob.  Site.     New 

York,  1883. 
Trusen.     Die  Sitten,  etc.,  d.  Alten  Hebraer.     Breslau,  1853. 
Tuch.     "  Bemerk.  zur  Genesis  c.  xiv."     Zeitsch.  d.  Dent.  Morgen- 

land.  Gesellschaft.  i.  p.  161. 
Tuch.     CovDnentar  i'lber  die  Genesis.      2te   Aufl.  besorgt  von  Ar- 
nold u.  Merx.     Halle,  1871. 
Tuch.     "  Etwas  iiber  das  Manna."     Zeitsch.  d.  Deut.  Morgcnliind. 

Gesellschaft,  iv.  p.  224. 
Tulloch.      "  Luther  and  Recent   Criticism."     Nineteenth    Century, 

April,  1884. 
Turner.      Compan.  to  Book  of  Genesis.     New  York,  1846. 
Twesten.     Die   Religi'dsen,  Polit.,  u.  Socialen  Ideen  d.  Asiat.  Cul- 

turvolker.     BerUn,  1872. 
Tyler.     "Origin  of  Name  Jehovah."    Modern  Rev.,  1883,  p.  177. 
Tympe.     Prima  Quitique  Geneseos  Capita.     Jena,  1756. 
Tyndale.     I'he  Pe/it.  newly  Corrected,  cic.     1534.     A  facsimile  ed. 

by  Mombert,  New  York,  1884. 
Ubaldi.      Introductio  in   Sacram   Script uram.      Vol.     ii.,    Rome, 

1879.  ^     . 

Ugolino.     Thesaurus    Aiitiquitat.   Sacrarum.     34  vols.      Venice, 

1769. 


470         The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Uhlemann.     Handb.  d.  Aegypt.  Alterthumskunde.      Leipz.,  1857  f. 
Uhlemann.     Israeliten  u.  Hyksos  nt  Aegypten.     Leipz.,  1856. 
Ullmann.     Historisch  odcr  Mythisch?     Hamburg,  1838. 
Ulysse.     Pentateiichi  Versio  Latina  Antiquissima    e    Cod.  Lugdu- 

nensi.     Paris,  1881. 
Umbreit.     Grundtone  d.  Alteti  Testaments.     Heidelb.,  1843. 
Umbreit.      "  Probe    einer    Auslegung    d.    Schopfungsgeschichte." 

Stud.  11.  Kritike7i,  1839,  i- 
Umbreit.     "  Der  Busskampf  Jacobs."    /ii^zV/.,  1848,  i. 
Umbreit.      Review   of    Bahr's   Symbolik   d.   Mos.    Cidtus.      Ibid., 

1843,  i. 
Umbreit.     Review  of  Friedrich's  Symb.  d.  Mos.  Stiftsh'utte.     Ibid. 
Umbreit.     "Sieben   Blicke  in   d.  I  Cap.  d.  Genesis."     Ibid.,  1846, 

iv.  ;   1847,  iii. 
Unruh.     Zug  der  Israelii,  aus  Aegypt  en    nach    Canaan.     Langen- 

salza,  i860. 
Urgeschichte  d.  IVett,  etc.     Anon.     Zerbst,  1855. 
Urquhart.     "  Jehovistic  and  Elohistic  Theories."     British  and  For. 

Ev.  Review,  1882,  p.  205. 
Use  of  Jehovah  and  EloJdin  in  Pentateuch.     Lond.,  1869. 
Usher.     Annates  V.  et  N.  Test.     Lond.,  1650;  Bremen,  1686. 
Vaihinger.      "  Pentateuch,"  "  Moses,"  "  Pascha,"     "  Philistaa"  u. 

'_' Philister,"  "  Pfingsfest."     Herzog's  Real-Encyk.     iste  Aufl. 
Vaihinger.     "  Ueber  das  Verzeichniss  der  Reisezuge  Israels  durch 

die  Wuste,  Numb,  xxxiii.    1-49."     Stud.    71.   Kritiken,    1870, 

.  P-  445- 
Vaihinger.     "  Weg  d.  Israeliten  v.  Gosen  bis  zum  Uebergang  durch 

_  d.^Rothe  Meer."    Ibid.,  1872. 
Vaihinger.       "  Zur   Aufliellung   d.    nach    exilischen   Geschichte    d. 

Volkes  Israel  nach  d.  Blichern  Esra  u.  Nehemia."     Ibid.,  1854, 

i. ;  1855,  i. 
Valeton.     "  Deuteronomium."     Stiidien,  v.,  Nos.  2,  3,  and  4;    vi. 

i,2i  A'l  vii.  1-3.     See  Stitdien. 
Van  Dyk.     "  Godsdienst  en  Historic."     Valeton's  Studien,  vii.  4. 
Van  Goens.     "  La  M^thode   de   la   Criticjue   d'apr^s  A.  Kuenen." 

Rev.  de  Theol.  et  de  Philos.,  Mars,  1881. 
Van  Oosterzee.     Moses :  a  Biblical  Study.     Trans.     Lond.,  1875. 
Van  Til.     Commentaritis  de  Tabernac.  Mosis.     Dort,  1714. 
Van  Til.     Opus  Analyt.  comprehendens  Introductionem   in   S.  S. 

Jena,  1723. 
Varen.     Decades  Mosaicae  in  Gen.  et  Exodum.     1659. 
Varen.     Decades  Biblicae  in  IV.  Libri  Mosis.     1668. 
Vater.      Commentar  iiber  den  Petitateuch.     Halle,  1802-5. 
Vatke.     Die  Religion  d.  Alien  Test.     Berlin,  1835. 
Vatke.     See  Hilgenfeld. 

Veith.     Anfdnge  d.  Menschenwelt.     Wien,  1865. 
Venema.     Dissertationes  ad  Genesin.     1747. 
Venema,     Institutt.   Historiae  Ec.    Vet.   et  Nov.    Test.      Leyden, 

1777-83- 
Vercellone.     See  Cozza. 


Litcrattifc  of  the  Pcntatcnch.  4/1 

Vermigli.  In  Prim.  Libruiii  JlTosis  Com.  2d  ed.  Heidelberg, 
1606. 

Vernes.  "  L'Origine  et  la  Composition  du  Pentateuque."  Melanges 
de  Critique  Religieiise.     Paris,  1880. 

Vernes.  "  Les  plus  Anciens  Sanctuaires  des  Israelites.'"  Revue  de 
VHistoire  des  Religions,     y  Ann^e,  Nr.  i . 

V^ron.  Histoire  IVaturelle  d.  Religions,  etc.  Tom.  v.  et  vi.  de  la 
BibliotJiek  Afateriatiste.     Paris.,  1884. 

Vet7-is  Testament u/nj'uxta  Septuaginta  ex  Auctoritate  Sixti  V.  P.  M. 
Editum.     Rome,  1587. 

Vigouroux.  "  La  Bible  et  rAssyriologie."  Rev.  des  Questions  His- 
toriques,  Avril,  Oct.,  1879. 

Vigouroux.  La  Bible  et  la  Dtcouvertes  Modernes  en  Palestine,  en 
Egypte,  et  en  Assyrie.     3d  ed.     4  vols.     Paris,  1881-82. 

Vigouroux.  "  La  Bible  et  I'Egyptologie.  Le  Passage  de  la  Mer 
Rouge  par  les  Hdbreux."  Revue  des  Questions  Historiques, 
Janv.,  1 88 1. 

Vigouroux.  "  La  Chronologic  Biblique  avant  le  Deluge."  Ques- 
tions Controversies  de  I  Histoire,  7.'^  Serie,  1881. 

Vigouroux.  "  Les  Juges  d'Israel."  Rev.  des  Questions  Histo- 
riques.    Juill.,  1877. 

Vigouroux.  Manuel  Bibliqjie  Ancien  Test.  2d  ^d.  T.  i.  Intro- 
duction Ghicrale  Pentateuque.     Besanc^on,  1881. 

Vilmar.  "  Symbol.  Bedeutung  des  Naziraergelubdes."  Stud.  u. 
Kritiken,  1864,  iii. 

Vogel.     D.  letzten  Gr'unde  d.  Mensck.  Glaubens.     Sulzlj.,  1806. 

Volck.     Der  Segen  Mosis.     Erlangen,  1873. 

Volck.  Die  Bedeidung  d.  Semit.  Philologief.  d.  Alttest.  Exegese. 
2te  Aufl.,  Dorpat,  1874. 

Volck.     Mosis  Canticum  Cygneujn.     Nordling.,  1861. 

Volck.     See  Gesenius. 

Vblker.     Mythologie  des  Japhet.  Geschlechtes.     Giessen,  1824. 

Vollers.  Pentateuch7is  Samaritanus  (iii.  Leviticus).  [A  continu- 
ation of  Petermann's  work.]     Berlin,  1883. 

Volney.     Rechcrdies  Nouv.  sur  VHistoire  Ancienne.     Paris,  18 14. 

"Von  den  Beiden  Recensionem  der  Zehn  Worte."  Allgeineine 
Zeit.  d.  Judenthums,  1882,  p.  521. 

Vuilleumier.  Etude  sur  le  Monotheisvie  des  Hebreux,  son  Carac- 
tire,  ses  Origines.     Paris,  1864. 

Vuilleumier.  "La  Critique  du  Pentateuque  dans  sa  Phase  Actu- 
elle."     Revue  de  Thiol,  et  de  Philos.,  1882-84. 

Vuilleumier.     La   Ridemption   dans  V Ancien    Test.      Paris,  1869. 

Vuilleumier.  "  Le  MoTse  Egyptien,"  etc.  Rev.  de  Thiol,  et  de 
Philos.,  Nov.,  1880. 

Vuilleumier.  "  Le  Nom  de  Dieu  Jahv<ih-9eba6th.'"  Rev.  de  Thiol, 
et  de  Philos.,  A\n\,  I'ijj. 

Waehner.  A)iiiquitatcs  Ebraeorum  de  Israeliticae  Gentis  Origine^ 
etc.     2  vols.     Getting.,  1742-43. 

Wahl.     D.  Verfasser  d.  Buches  d.  Richter.     TUbing.,  1859. 

Waltz.     Einheit  d.  Mefischengeschlechts,  etc.     Lcipz.,  1859-60. 


4/2        The  PentatcucJ^ :  Its  Origin  and  Stnccture. 

Walcott.     Sacred  Archeology .     Lond.,  1868. 
Walton.     S.S.  Biblia  Polyglotta.     6  vols.  fol.     Lond.,  1657. 
Wangemann.     Das  Erste  BncJi  Mosis  .  .   .  erkldrt.     Berlin,  1881. 
Wano;emann.     Das    Opfer   iiach   Lchre  d.  Heil.  Schrift.     2   vols. 

Berlin,  1866. 
Wangemann.     Die  Bedeutung  d.  Stiftsh'utte.     Berlin,  1866. 
Warburton.     Divine  Legation   of  Mosis   Demonstrated.      5    vols. 

Lond.  (1738),  1846. 
Ward,  L.  F.     Genesis  of  Man.     Phil.,  1880. 

Ward,  W.  H.      "Assyrian  Studies."     BibliothecaSac,  xxvii.  p.  184. 
Ward,  W.  H.     "The  Serpent   Tempter  in   Oriental   Mythology." 

Ibid.,  April,  1881. 
Warnekros.     Entwurf  d.  Hebr.  Alterthi'imer.     Weimar,  1782.     3d 

ed.  by  A.  G.  Hoffmann,  1832. 
Warring.     "  The  Argument  of  Science  with  Gen.  i."     Journal  of 

C/iristian  PJiilos.,  Jan.,  1884. 
Washburn.     Sermons  on  the   Ten    Conitnandments .      New  York, 

Washburn.     "Aim  and  Infl.  of  Mod.   Bib.  Criticism."     Princeton 

Pev.,  July,  1879. 
Watson.       The  Law  and  the    Prophets.      Huls.    Lectures,    1882. 

Lond.,  1884. 
Watts.     The  Newer  Criticism  and  the  Analogy  of  Faith.     3d  ed. 

Edinb.,  1882. 
Weber,  F.  W.      Ktirzgefasste  Einleit.   iti   d.   Heil.   Schrift.      6te 

Aufl.,  Nordling.,  1881. 
Weber,  G.     Geschichte  d.  Volkes  Israel.     Leipz.,  1867. 
Weed.     "  Route  of  the  Exodus."     Expositor,  Sept.,  1883. 
Weiller.     Ideen   z.    Gesch.   d.   Entwickehmg  d.   Relig.    Glaubens. 

Mlinchen,  1808-15. 
Weiss,  B.     Critical  Invest,  of  Hist.  Events,  etc.,  of  Petit.     Dundee, 

1850. 
Weiss,  J.  H.      Zier   Geschichte  d.    Judischen    Tradition.      Wien, 

1871. 
Welch.     "  Moses  and  his  Wife."     New  Englander,?)&'!^\..,  \%Z\. 
Weld.     "  Route  of  the  Exodus."    Pal.  Explor.  Fund  Quarterly, 

July,  1883. 
Wellhausen.     "  Composition  des  Hexateuchs."     fahrb.  f.  Deutsche 

Thcologie,  1876-77. 
Wellhausen.     De  Gentibus  et  Familiis  Judaeis  quae  i  Chron.  ii.-iv. 

enumerantjir .     Getting.,  1871. 
Wellhausen.     Geschichte  Israels.     Erster  Band.     Berlin,  1883.     2te 

Aufl.,   under  the   title,   Prolegomena   zur    Geschichte  Israels. 

Berlin,  1883. 
Wellhausen.     "  Israel."     Encyc.  Britannica. 
Wellhausen.     Skizzen   u.    Vorarbeiten.    i.   "Abriss   d.   Geschichte 

Israels  u.  Juda's."     Berlin,  1884. 
Welte.     Nachmosaisches  im  Pentateuch  beleuchtet.     Freiburg,  1841. 
Welte.     See  Herbst,  also  Wetzer. 
Werner,  A.     De  Votis  Vet.  Israelitarum.     Stade,  1737. 


Literature  of  the  Pentateuch.  473 

Werner,  C.  G.     Geschichtliche  Auffassuni^  d.  drei  Erst  en  Kapitel  d. 

Erstcii  B.  Mosis.     Tubing.,  1829. 
Wesseling.     Diatr.  Judaeorwn  Arclionitibus .     Utrecht,  1738. 
Wetzer  (u.  Welte).     Kirchen-Lexikon.      2te   Aufl.,    Frankf.,    from 

1880. 
Whedon.     Com.  on  the  Old  and  New  Testaments .     7  vols.     New 

York,  1860-80. 
Whiston.     Maori's  of  Flav.  Josephiis  (trans,  from  Greek).     Lond., 

1736.     See  Josephus. 
White.      Coni.  on  Gen.  i.-iii.     Lond.,  1656. 
Whitehouse.     "  Route  of  the  Exodus."     Expositor,  Yiftc,  i^^t,. 
Whitfield.     Tabernacle,  Priesthood,  and   Offerings  of  Israel.     2d 

ed.     Lond.,  1884. 
Wichelhaus.       "  Gedanken   aus   der   Einleitung   in    die    Genesis." 

Reformirte  K.  Zeitung,  1884,  pp.  721,  769. 
Wickes.     Moses  or  the  Zulu.     Lond.,  1863. 
Wicksteed.     "  Sources    of   Early    Israelitish    History."      Atlantic 

Monthly,  March,  1884. 
Wiedemann.     Aegyptische  Geschichte.     i  Abtheil.     Gotha,  1884. 
Wiedemann.     Gesch.  Aegypt.  v.  Psaittinetisch  i.  bis  aif  Alex,  den 

Grossen.     Leipz.,  1880. 
Wiedemann.     "  Gesch.  d.  achzehnten  .(^gyp.  Dynastie."    Zeitsch. 

d.  Deiitsch.  Morg.  Gesellschaft,  1877,  p.  613. 
Wight.     Genesis  and  Geology .     Lond.,  1857. 
Wight.     Mosaic  Creation  and  Geology.     Lond.,  1847. 
Wiener.      Wdrterbiich  znm  Pentateuch.     Hannover,  1867. 
Wilkins,  A.  S.     PJicp.nicia  and  Israel.     Lond.,  187 1. 
Wilkins,  D.     Quinqne  Lib.   May  sis  in    Lingua  ^gyptiaca    et  ex 

eadcm  Latine  versi.     Lond.,  1731. 
Wilkinson,  L  G.     Manners  and  Customs  of  the  Ancient  Egyptians. 

Revised  ed.  by  Birch.     3  vols.     Lond.,  1878. 
Wilkinson,  W.  C.     "  The  Lev.  Law  as  a  Tuition  to  Theism."    Heb. 

Student,  Jan. -Feb.,  1883. 
Williams.     The  Beginning  of  the  Book  of  Genesis.     Lond.,  1861. 
Willis.     The  Worship  of  the  Old  Covenant.     Lond.,  1880. 
Wilson,  D.     Pre-historic  Man.     2  vols.     Lond.,  1862. 
Wilson,  E.     The  Egypt  of  the  Past.     Lond.,  1881 . 
Wilson,  J.     Our  Israelitish  Origin,  etc.     Lond.,  1878. 
Winchell.     A  Demonstration  of  the  Existence  of  Men  before  Adam, 

etc.     Chicago,  1880. 
Winchell.     Evolution.     New  York,  1874. 
Winchell.     Reconcil.  of  Science  and  Religio7i.     Ibid.,  1877. 
Winer.     Biblischcs  Realivorterbuch.      2    Bde.     3te    Aufl.,    Leipz., 

1847-48. 
Winer.     De  Version.  Pentat.  Samar.  Indole.     Leipz.,  1817. 
Winer.     De  Onkeloso  ejusque  Paraph.  Chaldaica.     Erlang.,  1820. 
Winer.      De    Jonathanis    in    Pentateuchum    Paraph.    Chaldaica. 

Ibid.,  1823. 
Wines.     Cotnmentaries  on  the  Laws  of  the  Ancient  Hebrews.     New 

York,  1855. 


474        The  Pentateuch:  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 

Wines.     "  Laws  of  the  Ancient   Hebrews."    Bibliotheca  Sac,  x. 

p.  619. 
Winstock.     "  The  Prophets  as  Spiritual  Guardians  of  the  Hebrew 

Faith."     Anier.  Hebrew,  Jan.  2,  1885. 
Wise.     "Moses:   the  Man  and  the  Statesman."    Amer.  Israelite, 

1883,  Jan.  26,  Feb.  2. 
Witsius.     "  De  Cultu  Molochi."    Miscel.  Sacra.     Leyden,  1736. 
Wogue.     Hist  aire  de  la  Bible  et  de  VExig^se  Biblique  jiisqii'  a  nos 

Jours.     Paris,  1881. 
Wolcott.     "  The  Site  of  Sodom."     Bibliotheca  Sac,  xxv.  p.  112. 
Wolde.     De  Anno  HcbraeoriDH  Jnbilaeo.     Getting.,  1837. 
Wolff,  M.     Urgeschichte  oder  i  Mos.  i.-vi.  8.     Homberg,  i860. 
Wolff,  O.     "  Auszugd.  Israeliten  aus  ^gypten."     Theol.  Zeitschrift 

V.  Dieckhof  u.  Kliefoth,  1863. 
Woolley.     Analysis  of  the  Hebrew  Mythology.     Lond.,  1877. 
Wolseley.     Reasonableness  of  Scripture  Belief .     Lond.,  1672. 
Wordsworth.     The  Holy  Bible  in  the  Author.  Version.     With  Notes 

and  Introductions.     Lond.,  1872. 
Wright,  A.     Practical  Com.  on  the  Pentateuch.     Lond.,  1661. 
Wright,  C.  H.  H.     The  Book  of  Genesis  in  Hebrew  with  a  Criti- 
cally Revised  Text,  etc.     Lond.,  1859. 
Wright,  G.  F.       "  Recent    Works    on    Prehistoric    Archaeology." 

Bibliotheca  Sac,  xxx.  p.  381. 
Wright,  Wm.     The  Empire  of  the  Hittites  in  the  Light  of  the  Bible 

atid  Inscriptions.     Lond.,  1884. 
Wurster.     "  Zur  Characteristik  u.  Geschichte  des  Priester-codex  u. 

Heiligkeitsgesetz."    Zeitsch.  f.  Alttest.  IVissenschaft ,  1884,1. 
Wuttke.     Religion-u.  Staatsidee  in  d.  Vorchristlichen  Zeit.     Leipz., 

1872. 
Yonge.     "Esau  and  Jacob."    Expositor,  May,  1884. 
Yonge.     "  Jacob's  Pillar."     Idem,  Jan.,  1884. 
Zahn.     "1st  Fetischismus  eine  urspriingliche  Form  d.  Religion?" 

Allgem.  Miss.  Zeitsch.,  May,  1879. 
Zahn.     Samuel  der  Prophet  u.  Reformator.      Vortrag.     Barmen, 

1873- 
Ziegler,  A.     Htstor.  Entwickelung  d.    G'dttbchen    Offenbarung  tn 

ihr.  Hauptmojnente  Speculativ  Betrachtet.     Nbrdl.,  1842. 
Ziegler,  L.     Brtichstucke  einer  vorhieronymianischen   Uebersetzung 

des  Pentatejtch  .  .  .  zum  ersten  Male  ver'dffentlicht .    Munchen, 

1883. 
Zockler.     "  Der  Mos.  Schopfungsbericht  u.  die  Neuere  Naturwis- 

senschaft."     Ev.  Kirchenseitiing,  1880,  No.  25  f. 
Zockler.     "  Die  Sintfluth-Sagen  des  Alterthums,  nach  ihrem   Ver- 

haltniss  zur  biblischen  Sintfluthgeschichte."     fahrb.  f.  Deut. 

Theol.,  1870,  p.  319. 
Zockler.     Die  Urgeschichte  der  Erde  u.  des  Menschen.     Vortrage. 

Gutersloh,  1868. 
Zockler.      "  Die   Urgestalt  der  Religion."      Warneck's  Missions- 

Zeitschrift,  Oct.-Dec,  1880. 
Zockler.     "  Gesetz  u.  Propheten."    Ev.  Kirchen-Zeittmg,  Nos.  33, 

34,  1882. 


Literature  of  the  Pentateuch.  475 

Zbckler.     Handb.  d.  Theologischen    Wissenschaften  in  Encyklopd- 

discher  Darstellung.     Nordlingen,  1883  f.     See  particularly  the 

section  on  "  Einleitung  ins  A.  T."  by  Strack,  "  Archaol.,"  and 

"Gesch."by  F.  W.  Schultz.     In   English,  T.  and   T.  Clark, 

Edinb. 
Zockler.     Luther  als  Ausleger  d.  Alten  Test.,  gewurdigt  mif  Grtmd 

seiiies  groseren  Genesis-Commentar.     Greifswald,  1884. 
Zockler.     "Nineveh's   u.  Bab.  Zeugniss   f.  d.  Geschichtsinhalt  d. 

Alten  Test.'*     Zeitsch.f.  Kirch.  Wiss.,  etc.,  1880,  p.  289. 
Zockler.       "  Ueber    die    Anfange    d.    Menschlichen    Geschichte." 

Zeitsch.  f.  Luther.  Theol.,  1869. 
Zollmann.     Bibel  u.  Natur  in  der  Harmofiie  ihrer   Offenbarung. 

3te  Aufl.,  Hamb.,  1872. 
Zorn.     Historiq  Bibliorum  ex  Ebraeorion  Diebus  Fes t is  et  yejuniis. 

Leipz.,  1 74 1. 
Zschokke.     Historia   Sacra  Antiq.    Testamenti.     2d  ed.      Wien, 

1884. 
Zunz.     Die  Gottesdietistlichen   Vortrage  d.  Juden  Historisch  Ent- 

wickelt.     Berlin,  1832. 
Zunz.     Die  24  B'ucher  d.  Heil.  Schrift.     Berlin,  1837.     Zunz  was 

general  editor.      His  co-laborers  were  Arnheim,   Furst,   and 

Sachs. 


XII. 

INDEXES. 

(i)     Scripture  Texts.^ 


Genesis. 
i.  2  .  .  . 
ii.  17  .  . 
ii.  21-24 
iii.  17  . 
iv.  10 
iv.  23  . 
V.  29 


204 

238 

156 

64 

149 

58 

64 

vm.  20 102,229 

ix.  4 17s 

ix.  6 149 

X.  10 208 

xii.  5      47. 52 

xiii.  10-13 64 

xiv.  14   ... 53 

XV.  18 187 

xvi.  10 64 

xvii.  10     21 

xvii.  20 64 

xviii loi 

xviii.  14 336 

xviii.  18 341 

xix.  29 64 

xix.  38 170 

XX 65 

XX.  13 91 

xxi.  33 64 

xxii.  7 102,229 

xxii.  14      47 

xxii.  18      341 

xxii.  19      64 

xxvi.  4 341 

xxxi.  54 102,229,231 

xxxiv.  15 21 

XXXV.  21 52 

xxxvi.  31,47,  52 141 

xxxvii.  14 52 

xxxviii 158 

xxxviii.  21 194 

xl.  IS 52 

xlvi.  I 102 

xlvi.  27 21 

xlvii.  22 113 

xlix.  3 190 

xlix.  10 141 


Exodus. 


111. 


••••.;. 59 

vi.   12-16,  viii 214 

X.  25 231 

xii.  6,  10 108 

.xii.  9 102 


Exodus. 

xiii.  13 I5« 

XV.   3 368 

XV.  II 337 

xvi.  3 142 

xvii.  14 50 

xvii.  15 354 

xvii.  8-16 159 

xviii.  13-16 225 

xix.  6 308,337 

xix.  22,  24 113 

xix.  20,  25 124 

xx.-xxiii 7.  5i>76,  85 

XX 


.  140 

•  342 

•  45 

.  184 

.  68f. 

233 


3.4 

XX.  10 

XX.    12 

XX.    17 

XX.  22-xxiii.  19 

XX.    22,   23 

XX.  23-26 230 

XX.  24 354 

XX.  24,  25      302 

XX.  25 94 

xxi.  2-6 179.233 

xxi.  6,  22 113 

13 186,254 

16 198 

17 150 

22 113. 152 

"3 

193 

191 

183 


XXI. 

xxi. 

xxi. 

xxi. 

xxii. 

xxii. 

xxii. 

xxii. 

xxii. 

xxii. 

xxii. 

xxii. 

xxii. 

.\xiii 

xxiii 

xxiii 

x.xiii 

xxiii 

xxiii, 

xxiii 

xxiv 

xxiv 

XXV. 
XXV. 

x,\v. 

XXV. 
XXV. 


i6, 18  

i3      

19      

20 342 

21-24 182 

24,  25,  26 195,197 

27 209 

30 175 

4>  5      190 

9-11 177 

14 93 

16 107, 109 

18 108 

23,  24,  27-33 172 

24 169 


•4 

.  16     ......  •    .   . 

■xxviii.;   xxxvi. -xxxviii. 


10-22 

23-30 
29  .    . 


•91 

22ft 
,  91 
,  225 
,  227 

23^ 


*  All  references  are  to  the  Hebrew  text. 


Indexes. 


477 


Exodus. 

xxvii.  20,  -ji 22S 

xxviii.   1-43  , 210 

xxyiii.   41 :iy 

XXIX 101 

xxix.  26-28 127 

xxix.  29 214 

xxix.  38-42 214 

xxix.  46 gr 

XXX.    I-2I,  34-3S 226 

XXX.  10  .    .    .' 242 

XXX.  22-33 120,215 

XXX.  30      119,214 

XXxii 2ig 

xxxii.  6      231 

xxxiii.  7-9,  11      222,224  f- 

xxxiv.  1 21 

xxxiv.  13,  23 93 

xxxiv.  10-26    51 

xxxiv.  12-17 169,172 

xxxiv.  18  .    .   .    .' 105, 107 

xxxiv.  18,  25 108 

xxxiv.    22 107,  109 

xxxiv.  25 2^,0 

xxxiv.    26 igt 

XXXV.,  xl 72 

xl.  17      229 

Leviticus. 

i.  1-17 229 

ii loi 

ji.  1-6,  7-11      230 

ii.  II 102 

iii.  1-17 231 

iv 232 

iv.  3,  5,  16 119 

V.  22,  23 191 

vi.  5 103 

vi.  II     192 

vi.  12-16 213 

^!:  '9   ..•    •   •..;    •    •  .: 300 

vu.,  xxii.,  xxiu., xxvii 197 

vii.  T5-17 128 

vii.  36 214 

viii.-x 72 

viii.  12 2:3 

X.  8-11 215 

":  9 230 

XI.  2-19 2-> 

xi.  1-21,  22-43 173  f. 

xi.  44 303 

xii.  1-18 237 

xii.  31 202 

xiii.,  xiv 20,   43,   199 

xiii.  13-19      201 

XV.  1-33 194 

XVI Ill 

xvi.  1,2 244 

xvi.  1-34 242 

xvi.  4 119 

xvii.  1-9 20 

xvii.-xxvi 77,86,98,106 

xvii.  5 98 

xvii.  7 193 

xvii.  8,  9 90 

xviii.  6  ff. 193 

xviii.  16 15S 

xviii.  20 103 

xviii.  21 170 

xviii.  22 194 


Leviticus. 

xix.  3  f. 148 

xix.   11,15,16 188 

xix.  13.  33.  34 182 

xix.  20 157 

xix.  26-31      184 

xix.  27,  28 172 

xix.  35,  36 200 

XX.  4,5 171 

XX.   9 150 

XX.   18 201 

xxi.  7 156 

xxi.  10 118 

xxii.   1-16 21S 

xxii.  8 176 

xxii.  II 202 

xxii.  15      175 

xxii.  19-27 i8i 

xxii.  2T,  23 299 

xxii.  28      191 

xxiii.  9-22     .   .    , 106 

xxiii.  23-25 239 

xxiii.   26-32 111,242 

xxiv.  5-9 227 

xxiv.   15 202 

XXV.  1-7 177 

XXV.  10-14 209 

XXV.   13-16 202 

XXV.  35-37 195 

XXV.  39-46 179 

xxvi.  15 .   .  299 

xxvi.  30 109 

xxvi.  46 235 

xxvii.   1-34 134 

xxvii.   10 236 

NUMHERS. 

i.-xiv 216 

iii.  3 214 

iv.    34-49 222 

V.  1-4 194 

VI.  I-2I 236,34s 

vi.,  XV.,  xxix  f. 197 

vi.  22-27 219 

vii.     8 222 

viii.   1-4 281 

X.   10 348 

X.   II 229 

X.  33 223 

X.  35 221.354 

xi.  24,  26,  30 224 

xii.  2 219 

XV.  1-16 301 

XV.   1-12 230 

XV.   2 231 

XV.  3 299 

XV.  22-28 232 

XV.  30,31 209 

xviii.   10 21S 

xix.  1-22 238 

xi.\.  14  f. 309 

xxiii.  9 341 

XXV.  3 263 

XXV.  10-13        .....  316 

xxvii.    21 312 

xxviii    1-15 229 

xxix.   7-11 242 

x.w.  3 196 

xxxii.  41 269 


478       The  Pentateuch :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 


Deuteronomy. 

»•  I  f 259,265 

J-  i-S 253 

1.  2,  II 266 

••2      47 

>•  S      51 

;•  6 254 

1. 23 21 

1.26,31,43;   vi.  16,  etc 287 

i.  28,  31 262 

ii.  7 263 

ii.  10,  12 267 

ii.  20 170 

iii.  9 26S 

iii.  II      47 

iii.  21 263 

jv.  3   .   . 263 

iv.  4-xxviii 67 

iv.  5,  10 287 

iv.  15-19 168 

iv.  19 140 

iv.  41      21 

vj:  4 90.   335 

vii.  3 216 

vii.  5.  25.  26 338 

vii.  23-29 288 

X.  1-5 21 

X.  3 226 

X.  6,  7 271 

X.  8 115 

X-   12 301,315 

X.  15 287 

xi.  2 , 263 

xi.  10 279 

xi.  29 288 

xii.-xxvi 7>   51 

xii.  I 168 

xii.  2-4,  5-28 134 

xii.  5,  8      89 

xii.  6-16 20 

xii.  6,  II,  17,  26 126,197 

xii.  8 302 

xii.  10 357 

xii.  II 91 

xii.  IS 125 

xii.  16 175 

xiii.  2-6,7-12,13-19 134 

xiii.  13-19 171 

xiv.  1,2 19,    172 

xiv.  3-20 20,   173 

xiv.  21 175 

XV.  l-II 177 

XV.  10,  i3 .  2S5 

XV.  12-18 179 

XV.  17 113 

XVI.  1-8 105 

xvi.  3,  9 107 

xvi.  4-8 108 

xvi.  7 102 

xvi.  13-15 109 

xvi.  18 136,346 

xvii.  2-5 134 

xvji.  2-7 183 

xvii.  9 113 

xvii.  14      141,143 

xvii.  9,  18 116 

xviii.  2 20,   124 

xviii.  3,4' 124,127 

xviii.  9-14     .   , 184 

xviii.  15-19 144 


Deuteronomy. 

xix.  1-13 154 

xix.  14 146 

xix.  16,  21 188 

xix.  17 113 

xix.  19 191 

XX.  1-9 147 

XX.  9,16-18 19 

XX.  10-14,  IS,  19,  20  .......   .  148 

XX.  10-15 171 

XX.  18 172 

xxi.  1-9,  10-14,  18 149  f. 

xxi.  15-17 189 

xxi.  17   ... 190 

xxii.  1-4 190 

xxii.  5,9-11 191 

xxii.  8,  13-21 151 

xxii.  12      192 

xxii.  18 157 

xxii.  19,  29  . 156 

xxiii.    I 193 

xxiii.   2-9 153 

xxiii.   10-15 194 

xxiii.  16,  17 155 

xxiii.  18 197 

xxiii.  22,23  •• 19^ 

xxiv.   1-4 43.    156 

xxiv.  9,  19-22 199 

xxiv.  14,  15 182 

XXV.  1-3 152,157 

XXV.  4 191 

XXV.  5-10,  II,  12,  17-19 157  f. 

XXV.  17-19 19 

xxvi.  5 282 

xxvi.  12 127 

xxvii.-xxx 255 

xxvii.  20-23 194 

xxviii 360 

xxix.  3-5 263 

XXX.  6,  16 382 

xxxi 255 

xxxi.  9,  24 260 

xxxi.  9  .... 47,51 

xxxii. 250 

-xxxii.  4,  37.,.  41 368 

xxxii.-xxxiii 256 

xxxiii.  5 47 

xxxiii.  8 212 

xxxiv 256 

xxxiv.  8 254 

Joshua. 

iii.  3 • 116 

iii.  9-17 124 

iv.  19 254 

V.  2 360 

viii.  29 ....      151 

viii.  36 116 

X.   13 350 

xiv.  4 130 

xvii.  3 189 

xxi.  8 349 

xxi.  13,21,27 186 

xxii.  3 270 

xxii.   16      354 

xxiii,  9 270 

xxiv.  14 360 

xxiv.  26 350 

XXX.  3 51 


Indexes. 


An 


Judges. 
i.  2     •  •  • 
ii.  1-3    •   • 
ii.  2    .   .   . 
ii.  10, 12    . 
iii.  13     .   . 
vi.  19     .   . 
viii.  22,  23 
viii.  24-27 
xi.  II 
xi.  30     . 
xiy.  3     . 
xvii.  4    . 
xvii.  5,  12 
xvii.  7    . 
xix.-xxi. 
xix.  I, 2 
xix.  i3  . 
XX.    I  .     . 
XX.  20    . 
XX.  26    . 
XX.  27    . 
xxi.  16,  22 


•  347 

•  346 
.  169 

.325 

•  159 

.   lOI 

43.346 

338 

354 
96.235 
347 
338 
354 
118 

325 
346 
351 
•354 
,  217 
,  226 
■  354 
■346 


I  Samuel. 

i.  II 235.351 

i.  24 loi 

ii.  14,  iQi  etc.  . 351 

ii.  10 342 

ii.  12-26 124 

ii.  13 102 

ii.  IS,  28 351 

iii.  3 •    ....•••  118 

iv.  3 354 

iv.  19-22 356 

vii.  3      347 

vii.  6 221 

viii.  iff. 142 

viii.  3 349 

viii.  5 '43 

viii.  15 153 

X,  3 102 

X.  25 350 

xiv.  3 352 

xiv.  47 '54 

xiv.  48 ig,    160 

XV.     2 19 

XV.    22 310.382 

XV.  23 185,357 

XV.  26,  35      326 

xvi.  7 390 

xvii.  26,  45 327 

xix.  19 364 

XX.  5,  26 348 

xxi.  2 327 

xxii.  20 «••••••  351 

a  Samueu 

i.  17    .   .  •   • 364 

i.  18 35" 

ii.  8 336 

vi.  13     115 

vii.  22-24 348 

xi.  14      350 

xii.   7 337 

XV.   7-9 357 

XV.  25 226 

xxiii.    I 364 

xxiv.  35 102 


1  Kings. 

i.  7-9 357 

ii.  3 347 

ii.   26 349 

iii.  2 • 358 

iii.  6 354 

iii.  16-28 225 

vi.  20,  21 226 

vii.  17 192 

vii.  49 227 

viii.  2 349 

viii.  6 115 

viii.  42  f. 342 

viii.  64 103 

viii.  65 3'9 

viii.  66 109 

XI.  7 33^^ 

xi.  41      350 

xii.  25 169 

xii.  28 339 

xiv.  24 195 

xiv.  25 279 

XV.  14 359 

xviii.    18 337 

xxii.  9 ^53 

2  Kings. 

iii.  20     . 349 

iii.  27 171 

iv.  23 350 

V.  5 350 

viii.  6 153 

viii.  7-15 343 

xii.  17 234 

xvii.  6 329 

xvii.  34-37 350 

X.  31 349 

xi.  12      143 

xii.  3,4 328 

xii.   16    .     • 100 

xii.  17 234 

xiv.  6 347 

xvi.  3 313 

xvi.  4 359 

xvii.  6 329 

xvii.   16      139 

xvii.  27  f. 52 

xviii.  22 359 

xix.  9 279 

xxi.  3  nr. 139 

xxi.  8 347 

xxiii.    7.... 195 

xxiii.  10 238 

xxiii.  20 135 

XXV.   18 120 

1  Chronicles. 

iv.  7,  8,  19 227 

iv.  43 160 

V.  23 268 

vi.  7-13 '"8 

xvi.,  xviii.,  xxvii 121 

xxiii.    5 365 

xxix.   14 ,    ....  230 

2  Chronicles. 

ii.  6 211 

iv.  8,  19 227 

v.  4,  5,  7 "5 


480       The  Pentateuch . 


Its  Origin  and  Structure. 


2  Chronicles. 
vii.  7-9  .   .   . 


319 
109 
no 

121 

359 
319 


vin.  13   

viii.  14 

xjv.  3-5     

xiv.  12 

xxiii.  i3 114 

XXX.  27 114 

xxxi.  13 120 

xxxii.  12 280 

xxxiii.  3  ff. 139 

xxxiv.   13 121 

xxxv.  13 102 


Ezra. 

ii-  55,  58 
II.  63  .   . 
iii.  10     . 
iii.   12,  13 
vii.   11-26 
ix.   12 


.  121 
.  212 
.  220 
.  229 

•  23s 

.  2l5 


Nehemiah. 

'•4      354 

V.  3 198 

vii.  65 212 

X.  32.  33 129 

xi.  II      120 

xii.  35 220 

xii.  44 121 

xiii.  28,  29 , 219 

Jon. 

i.  5      102,229 

xxii.  27      235 

xxxi.  26-28 339 

xx.\vi.   14 195 

xlii.  8 102 

Psalms. 

i.  I,  2 396 

»•  3      369,372 

J"-  4 387 

iv 402 

vii.  7 370 

vii.  10 390 

vii.  II 403 

vii.  13 366 

ix.  6,  13,  18,  20 370 

X.  1,4 387 

X'-  4 399 

x;-  7 403 

xiv.  2 370 

xiv.  7 387 

XV.  1,2      353,387 

XV.  4,  s 372 

xvi.  2-4 100,384 

xvi.  3 392 

xvi.  8,  II,  14,  15 405 

xviii.  6 377 

xyiii.  23 373 

xix.  9 327 

xix.  13 397 

XX.  6 369 

xxii.  4 390 

xxii.  8,  9 392 

xxii.  29 341 

xxiii 405 

xxiv 377 


Psalms. 

xxiv.   3 399 

XXV.  14 371 

xxvi.  9 400 

xxviii.  3 , 400 

xxix.  6   , 268 

xxix.  21 391 

xxxi.  7 391 

xxxiii.  6 371 

xxxv.  1,2 368 

xl 99   f.,  381 

xj:.  7 234 

xlii.  I 404 

xlii.  4,  II 391 

! 383 

'•   5 371 

1.   13 312 

li.,  vi.,  xxxviii 378 

Iv.  4 368 

Iv.  22      403 

Ivi.  13 374 

Ixviii.  15,  17 387 

Ix.xi.  22 390 

Ixxii.  20 366 

l.xxviii.  58-62 356 

Ixxxvi.  8-11      '    .    .    .    .  389 

cxxii.  5 386 

cxxxvii.  7 19, 154 

Proverbs. 

vii.  17 215 

xviii.  II 169 

xix.  iS 150 

XX.  25 235 

xxi.  3 382 

xxi.  27 27 

Ecclesiastes. 

V.  3-3 235 

Solomon's  Song. 

IV.  8 268 

iv.  14      215 

Isaiah. 

i.  2,  4 304 

i.  11-15 382 

i.  13 100 

ii.   7 147 

V.  2,  4 304 

vi.  3 309 

xi.x.  19 312 

xxiii.  18 309 

xxiv.  2 131 

XXX.  33 171 

xxxi.  3 337 

xxxvii.  9 279 

xl.  26      336 

xliv.  6 335 

Ivi.  3 153 

Ivi.  6 309 

Iviii.  3 314 

Iviii.   13 309 

Ixiii.   1-6 19 

Ixvi.  3 312 

Ixvi.  21 ,  ii4, 116 

Jeremiah. 

iv.  4 21 

vi.   19,  20 313 

vi.  20 •    .    .    .    •   I    •    •    .  100 


Indexes. 


481 


Jeremiah. 

vii.  21 383 

vii.  29 19, 173 

vii.  31 171 

ix.  24,  25 309 

ix.  26 21 

xi.  15 309 

xix.  13 238 

xxxi.  32 310 

xxxiii.  i8-2i 114,116,313 

XXXV 236 

xli.  5 19 

xlvii.  5 173 

xlviii.  37 173 

xlviii.  47 19 

xlix.  6,  7,  18 155 

Ij:  5 19 

lii.  19 227 

Hi.  24 120 

EZEKIEL. 

viii.  3 192 

xxvii.  5 268 

xl.- xlviii 77 

xl.  39 234 

xlii.  13 234 

xliv.  29 234 

xlv.  25 109 

xlvi.  14 loi 

xlvi.  20 234 

HosEA. 

i.  4 303 

V  6,  7 302 

fi.  7. 17 306 

iv.  6,  8 300 

v.  7 306 

vi.  6 310,382 

vi.  7 304 

vii.  16 134 

viii.  I      . 304 

viii.  13 154 

ix.  3 238,  309 

xii.  13 27 

xiii.  2 313 

xiii.   II 143 

xiv.  1-3 I    • 302 

Joel. 

i.  13 299 

ii.  15 302 

iii.  9 '54 

iv.  17 302 

iv.  19 299 

v.  4-6 302 

Amos. 

ii.  4 299 

ii.  10      27 

iii.  1-3 3"4 

iii.  9 15+ 

iv.  6-11 299,304 

V.  4,  5,21,  22 304 

v.  26 139.170 

vi.  5 3*^5 

vii.  17 238,309 

Jonah. 
i.  16 235 


MiCAH. 

i.  I  ff 3°3 

ii.  20 238 

iii.  12 278 

iv.  I,  3 303 

vi.  4 27 

vii.  7 100,313 

vii.   15 37 

Zephaniah. 
i.  5 171 

Haggai. 
ii.  11-14 314 

Zechariah. 

iii 119,214 

vii.  9 314 

ix.  II      305 

X.  2 i8s 

Malachi. 

i.  6,  12 210 

i.  8      182 

i.  14 197.235 

ii.  13-16 157 

iii.  1-4 315 

iii.  25 185 

Ecclesiasticus. 

iii.  1-16 150 

xxxiv.  18,  25 385 

XXXV.    I-I2 315 

XXXV.  I      38s 

1.  IS 230 

Baruch. 
i.  10 234 

1  Maccabees. 

i.  22 22S 

i.  56 364 

iii.  21 37 

iv.  46 212 

v.  6 170 

vi.   31      154 

2  Maccabees. 

ii.    14 364 

v.    ly 37 

X.  4.  36 "° 

xii.  37 363 

XV.  29 363 

Matthew. 

viii.  4 42 

XV.  5 197.236 

xxiii.  2 42 

Mark. 

i.  44 42 

vii.  9 197.236 

X.  3-9 42 

xii.  26 43 

xiv.  I 109 


482 


The  P entatench :  Its  Origin  and  Structure. 


Luke. 

V.  14 42 

V.  36,  37 353 

xvi.  29,  31 43 

XX.  37 42 

xxii.  I log 

xxiv.  44 43 

John. 

v..  45-47 43 

vii.  19 42 

viii.  17 1S3 

viii.  56 341 

xiv.  9 ■ 406 

Acts. 

vii.  58 183 

xiii.  21 143 

XV.  20,  29      175 

xxi.  25 175 

Romans. 
xi.  12     . 38 


1  Corinthians. 

ix.  4,  9 214 

2  Corinthians. 

xii.  14 I   •   •    •   •  311 

Philippians. 
i.  21 402 

I  Timothy. 

i.  9      285 

V.   18 214 

Hebrews. 

iii.  4 409 

vii.  16 218 

ix.  4   •••••••••■  226 

I  John. 

iii.  I...   ....#. 402 

iv.  16 285 


(2)     General  Index. 


Aben  Ezra 4, 46 

Altar  of  incense 226 

Amalek,  Destruction  of 158 

Argument  from  peculiar  use  of  divine 

names      55 

Assyrian  and  Egypt,  discoveries.  82,  248y. 
Assyria  not  recognized  in  Deut.  .    .    2.'&af. 

Astruc      4,  55 

Atonement,  Day  of 111,242 

Bearing  of  Israel's  sojourn  in  Egypt.     77 

Benny 157 

Bertheau     . 207 

Bickell 82 

"  Beyond  Jordan  " 270 

Blasphemy,  Law  against 209 

Bleek 42,62,162,251,257 

Bbhl 296 

Bbhmer 71 

Bredenkamp 13,  92,  312 

Briggs  . 42 

Burnt-offering,  The  ..•«>....    229 

Carlstadt 4, 47_/ 

Carlyle 305 

Character  of  earlier  Pent,  criticism    .      51 

Chronicler,  Aim  of 319 

Chronicles,  Genuineness  of  ....     3i8_/". 

Missing  links  in 320 

Cities  of  Refuge 185/. 

Cleanliness  in  camp 194 

Code  of  Priests      7,  30,  34y'. 

Codes  of  Pentateuch 85 

Colenso 71/- 

Conder 324 

"Congregation" 30>  iS3 

Consecration  of  Priests 213 

Criticism,  The,  Its  inadequate  rejoin- 
ders           21 

The  Literature  of 5 


Criticism,  The,  Its  logical  consequen- 
ces   6,  8,  76 

The      Inconclusiveness     of      its 

reasoning    .  16,  297?".,  81 

The  False  principles  of  ...   .      10 

Critics  no  longer  free 81 

Curtiss 42, 95 

Delitzsch,  Franz.  20,  26,  30,  31,  63, 
68_/!,  89,  92,  97,  103,  112,  120,  122, 
243.  255,  257.  311.  321,  343.  349.  370, 

374.  37S,  382,  389,  401 

Delitzsch,  Friedrich 2 

Destruction  of  Canaanitish  cities      .   .    171 
Deuteronomy,  Legislation  of    ...   .      18 

No  evidence  of  a  late  origin  in, 

263^.,  2747?: 

Moses  claimed  for  its  author   .    258_/f". 

Book  of.  Importance  in  the  criti- 
cism     132 

Bearing  of  its  code i64_/'. 

Ethical  plane  on  which  it  moves, 

166/.,  283/ 

Diversity  of  views  concerning  its 

origin  and  structure    ....    25oy! 

Unity  of 253^^. 

Language  and  style  of 256 

Development  not  in  straight  lines    .   .      13 

De  Wette 28,52,62,132,  252 

Diestel      43 

Dfficulties  in  traditional  view    ....      78 
Dillmann.  68,  81,  92, 107, 170, 199,  210, 

257.  295 

Disobedient  son.  Law  for isoy. 

Divisions  among  the  critics   ....     bdff. 

Divorce,  Law  of '^S^f- 

Documents:  Age  determined  how?     .      10 

in  Pent 78 

Duhm 73,  298,  334 

Dwinell 330 


Indexes. 


483 


Ebers 140 

Egyptian  coloring  in  Deuteronomy,  ^i^Zf. 

Eichhorn 55/- 

Elohistic  history.  Character  of .    ...      31 

Emerson 245 

Encyclopasdia  Britan 6,  34 

Essays  and  reviews 6 

Eunuchs,  Law  for 153 

Ewald 62,  100,  140,  251 

Example  of  repetition  of  a  law  .   ...    170 

Feasts,  The,  Wellhausen's  theory  of. 

104-112 
Feast  of  New  Moon no 

of  Trumpets no 

of  the  Passover 105/. 

Female  captives,  Law  for 150 

Fiction  versus  fact 32 

First  day  of  seventh  month 239 

Formula  of  Pent,  analysis 85 

Fox,  Caroline 27 

Frederick  n.,  Question  of 38 

Fugitive  Slaves,  Law  for 155 

Fundamental  ideas  of  the  prophets  .    334^. 

Geike 207 

George 4 

Gleaning igg 

Gnostics,  Objection  of 45 

Graf 4,  5,  72/.,  132 

Gramberg 62 

Green  ....  27,  57,  78,  143, 296,  356,  381 

Hamburger  . 112, 185,  215 

Hartmann      42,  47,  61 

Hasse 61 

Hebrews,  Epistle  to 15 

Herodotus 215,  268 

Hexateuch,  Composition  of b/. 

High-priest 118,  216 

Historical  Books,  Ethical  standard  of. 

...    .  322^. 

Hitzig      100,  y]i>f. 

Hobbes 49 

Hoffmann 88,  92,  99,  107,  128 

Homer,  Text  of 17 

Hommel 139,151,157,249 

Hostile  cities  of  Canaan,  Law  for    .    i48_/. 

Ignatius  quoted 15 

Ilgen 60 

Israel  and  Egypt 206 

Israel  and  Assyria 207 

Jehovist  document :  importance  of  its 

contents 80 

Jerusalem,  His  letters 55 

Jewish  people,  History  of 37 

Josephus 42,  log,  122,  243 

Josiah,  Reforms  of 23 

Joshua,  The  Book  of 346 

Judges  and  officers,  Appointment  of. 

Julian,  His  objections     . 45 

Kamphausen 192,  222 

Kayser 75,  219 

Keil 71,  109 

Kindness  to  animals.  Law  concerning.  191 
King,  Law  of  the i4ij'^ 


Kittel 33,90 

Kleinert 143,  151,  160,  258 

Knobel 71 

Kuenen S.  7i.  75.  334.  337 

Kurtz 225,  S69 

Lagarde 18 

Landmarks,  Law  concerning    .   .   .     146^^ 
Law  concerning  food  as  clean  and  un- 
clean      173 

concerning  animals  eaten  .   .   .   .    175 

for  protection  of  human  life    .   .    151 

concerning  destruction  of  idols  .    168 

Laws,  Case  of  amendment  of    ...   .    190 

Laws,  Their  execution 12 

Le  Clerc 52 

Lenormant .      82 

Leprosy,  Law  concerning 198 

Levirate  marriage 157 

Levitical  cities 130 

Levitical    legislation:    its   connection 

with  Deut 19 

Luther 12 

Lyon 45 

Magical  arts 184 

Man-stealing 198 

Marti 11,  no,  292 

Masius 48 

Meal  and  drink  offerings 230 

Merx 30,  42 

Michaelis 54 

Mixing  diverse  things     . 191 

Moloch,  Law  for 169 

Mosaic   claims:      Alternative    if  dis- 
puted     162 

Moses,  Blessing  of 272 

Farewell  of 286 

largely  ignored 33>  38 

"  Miracle  "  of  his  character  and 

life 13 

with  the  earlier  critics 53 

fitted  for   the   work    imputed  to 

him 77 

Mourning-customs  forbidden    ....    172 

Movers 251 

Murray 10 

Naville      38 

Nazarines,  Objections  of 45 

Nazarite,  Law  for 236 

"  Nethenim  "  and  "nethunim"  .    .   .    121 
New  Testament,  Witness  of     .    .   .  14,  42 

Noldeke      67,   94 

Nowack 304 

Offerings,  Wellhausen's    theory  of, 

94-104 

Oil,  The  anointing 215 

Old  Test,  study.  Value  of xf. 

Old    Test,    writers:     their    character 

impugned 15 

Omniscience  claimed  by  critics     ...      22 
Oppression  of  poor  forbidden    ....    182 

Parvish 250 

Peace-offerings       231 

Pentateuch,  Doctrinal  teaching  of  .    .  78 

Analysis 85 

Criticism,  Opening  period  of  .   .  54 


484       The  Pentatetich 


Its  Origin  mid  Structure. 


Perowne 401 

Peiiiio  principii 80 

Peyrere 49 

Philo 42 

Place  of  worship,  Wellhausen's  theory 

of 87-^94 

Pledges,  Law  concerning 197 

Popper 72 

Prepossessions 45 

Priests,  Requirements  of   .    .    .   .215,   218 

Prerogatives  of 219 

and  Levites,  Maintenance  of,  123-129 

Code  of:  its  contents 83^". 

Property  of  Israelitish  brethren     .    .      190 
Prophets.     Opinion  of  critics  concern- 
ing them 293/- 

Their  use  of  hyperbole 313 

Their  attitude  respecting  a  cen- 
tral sanctuary 302y! 

Their  teaching  in  general  .   .    .     26_^. 

Their  recognition  of  a  covenant.  304 

Their  earnest  convictions      .    .   .    307 

Not  to  be  classed  as  same  office 

with  the  priests 000 

Law  concerning  their  office      .    144/^ 

Impressions  made  upon  them  by 

the  Law 298^. 

Prostitution,  Law  concerning   ....    194 

Protevangelium 9 

Purification  in  case  of  murder  ....    149 

at  childbirth 237 

by  ashes  of  a  red  heifer     ....    238 

Psalms.     Principles    adopted     in    dis- 
cussing them 366 

Their  verbal  reminiscences  of  the 

Pent. _.   .    366/ 

Their  recognition  of  Pent,  history, 

369/ 
Psalms,  The,  and  the  Pent,  legislation. 

23/,  372 

and  the  leading  principles  of  the 

Israelite  religion 386,/. 

Psalms,  The.     Their  personal  element 

396/- 

They  do  not  disparage  sacrifice,  380/. 

Punishment  by  flogging 157 

for  immodesty 158 

of  Heb.  idolaters 138 

Rainy 46 

Ranke      225 

Rawlinson    ....  139,  140,  161,  206,  208, 

210,  252 
Reaction  among  German  critics  begun.     11 

Redactor 7,  66,  74,  81 

Reforms  in  Israel 23 

Release  of  Heb.  servants 178 

Religion  of  Israel:  its  consummation.     10 

Reuss 72 

Revelation  as  supernatural     .....       13 

Riehm  .  30,  74,  92,  109,  130,  137,  139,  143, 

152,  158, 174,  213,  222/.,  339 

Rights  of  inheritance 189 

Rimarius 54 

Ryssel .   1   .   .   .   .      79 

SAB.EANISM T-Z^f- 

Sabbath,  The no 

Sabbatic  year 177 

Sacred  vestments,  The 2ioy". 

Sacrifices  to  be  faultless 181 


Samaritan  Pentateuch 82 

Sayce 208,   249 

Scheme  of  the  criticism  .   .   .    .   29oy.,  334 

Schrader      67,  139,  249,  268 

Second  Elohist 66 

Seduction  to  idolatry ^34^^ 

Sepharvaim z 

Siegfried      42 

Sime 88,143,275 

Sin-offering,  The 232 

Sins  against  chastity 193 

Sixteen  reasons  against  the  Criticism  .  77^ 

Smend 30,   312,  316 

Smith,  R.  P 39 

Smith,  W.  R.    .  4,  10,  94,   142,  223,   294, 

296,  300_/. 

Spinoza 4,50 

Stade 317,   334 

Stahelm 62 

Stebbins      12 

Strack 42,  67,  92,  322 

Style  of  interpretation  employed     .   .      18 

Style  of  Pent,  writers 79 

Subjectivity  of  the  criticism ^J'. 

Sunday-School  Times 345 

Superficiality  of  the  earlier  criticism  .      53 
Synagogue,  The 36 

Tabernacle,  The 220^". 

Table  of  shew-bread 227 

Taylor,  Isaac     .   .   .  167,  204,  245,  398,  404 
Testimony  of  New  Test,  writers:    its 

bearing 44 

Thenius 100,   143 

Theory  of  Documents 55.^- 

of  Graf  and  Wellhausen   .    .   .     72_^ 

of  Supplements 62^^. 

Time  of  composition  of  the  Pent.    .    .      79 
Traces  of  Pent,  in  the  historical  books. 

3457?: 

Trespass-offenng,  The 233 

Tuch 42,  6z 

Uncertainty  of  results 81 

Unchastity,  Charge  of 151 

Urim  and  Thummim 212 

Usury,  Law  touching 195 

Van  Dale 52 

Vater 61 

Vatke 4 

Vigouroux      82 

Vitringa 56 

Volck 273 

Vows 196,  234 

Warrington 161 

Watson 27,  122,  308,  361 

Watts 27 

Weddell _  .      80 

Weights  and  measures,  Law  concerning  200 

Wellhausen     .  5,  11,  86,  113,  ii8y.,  12Z/., 

223,  228,  289/,  294,  300,  3i8if.,  332 

Wilson 161,   249 

Witness,  Bearing  false 188 

Witnesses  in  capital  cases 183 

Witsius 52 

Wolfenbiittel  Fragments 54 

Zeitgeist 71 

Zockler 17 


i 


3 


MAR  1  5  1943 

ftPR  8  1  1943 
3£P  2  8  1944 

VlAY  2     1952 
JEC  2  9  1952 


RSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  AT  LOS  ANGELES 

THE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 
This  book  is  DUE  on^^e  last  date  stamped  below 

SRC     SEP  1  8 


193»' 


!\N  17  1968 


Form  L-9— 15m-7,':-iJ 


ir^ny- 


968 


/*,=VT* 


^Cf  09 


V'^-.l- 


3  1158  00510  3832 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  383  103    9 


m 


ltiV.!.fJjML-:: 


I 


